GP4 gets >90% from UK PC Gamer

Now, how predictable is that? It's not up on their website yet (perhaps they're embarrassed...?), but I flicked through the mag in WH Smith, and it was just weird. The gist of the pice was "well, it's not really much of an improvement over GP3, but we're going to go all gooey over it anyway 'cause we worship Geoff Crammond". The text of the review doesn't equate with the 92% (I think) they gave it at the end. -- Hey, why be defeatist...? There are other sports :-) England 2 Sri Lanka 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard

I don't think the mags are as hard on racing sims as we are here. I see some shaky games get decent reviews. DC David Buttery <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Now, how predictable is that? It's not up on their website yet (perhaps > they're embarrassed...?), but I flicked through the mag in WH Smith, > and it was just weird. The gist of the pice was "well, it's not really > much of an improvement over GP3, but we're going to go all gooey over > it anyway 'cause we worship Geoff Crammond". The text of the review > doesn't equate with the 92% (I think) they gave it at the end. > > -- > Hey, why be defeatist...? There are other sports :-) > England 2 Sri Lanka 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D > > The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard

I don't think the mags are as *** racing sims as we are here. I see some shaky games get decent reviews. DC

"David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Now, how predictable is that? It's not up on their website yet (perhaps > they're embarrassed...?), but I flicked through the mag in WH Smith, > and it was just weird. The gist of the pice was "well, it's not really > much of an improvement over GP3, but we're going to go all gooey over > it anyway 'cause we worship Geoff Crammond". The text of the review > doesn't equate with the 92% (I think) they gave it at the end. This isn't a shock at all, as the review was written by Trevor Witt. He thinks he knows about race sims, and he thinks he knows about F1. Wrong on both counts.

"David Ciemny" <[email hidden]> wrote > I don't think the mags are as hard on racing sims as we are here. I seesome > shaky games get decent reviews. The PCG preview from february of so slated it as "Geoff's new masterpiece". Can you imagine what a sorry state that game must've been in back then? I think they automatically label everything with "Geoff" on it as a masterpiece. Actually one of the first things I thought after having played GP4 a bit was "god, and this game is gonna get 90%+". -- Frode

Predictable review but what was strange is their review fo F1 2002 from EA. The screenshots used in the review look pi$$ poor when compared to those in the GP piece. But the reviews I've found online praise the graphics engine in F1 and a few even say it is just as good as GP4. Is this just another case of a mag getting the exclusive first review and having to give it a great mark regardless? I'd also be interested to see if the problems people have been experiencing getting the thing to run well were put into the "they'll be fixed by the time it ships category" in the same way that GTA3's problems were ignored by the mags. M. "David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Now, how predictable is that? It's not up on their website yet (perhaps > they're embarrassed...?), but I flicked through the mag in WH Smith, > and it was just weird. The gist of the pice was "well, it's not really > much of an improvement over GP3, but we're going to go all gooey over > it anyway 'cause we worship Geoff Crammond". The text of the review > doesn't equate with the 92% (I think) they gave it at the end. > > -- > Hey, why be defeatist...? There are other sports :-) > England 2 Sri Lanka 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D > > The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard

"Card" <[email hidden]> wrote on 22 Jun 2002: > I remember PC Gamer in America giving Grand Prix Legends a review > in the seventies and in the same magazine they gave CART Precision > Racing (a joke) a score of eighty six. I knew that PC Gamer was > helping to end future serious sims with great physic modeling with > their ignorant review of GPL and that was the last magazine I ever > read from them.<snip> Actually, I have to stick up for PC Gamer UK here, as they gave completely different reviews from the US magazine - 74% for CART Precision Racing, and 93% for GPL. They're generally quite tough in their marking, but there are one or two things (Geoff Crammond being one) they seem to have a blind spot about. -- Hey, why be defeatist...? There are other sports :-) England 2 Sri Lanka 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard

I remember PC Gamer in America giving Grand Prix Legends a review in the seventies and in the same magazine they gave CART Precision Racing (a joke) a score of eighty six. I knew that PC Gamer was helping to end future serious sims with great physic modeling with their ignorant review of GPL and that was the last magazine I ever read from them. Geoff Crammond is well known for putting out race games that are not completed in his effort to make quick money and from what I have read so far with GP4, things have not changed. Typical review for PC Gamer though. Reward junk programs like CART Precision Crashing and GP4 and then turn away potential buyers from GPL created by a company (Papyrus) who really worked hard to put out a great finsished/polished program. David Buttery <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Now, how predictable is that? It's not up on their website yet (perhaps > they're embarrassed...?), but I flicked through the mag in WH Smith, > and it was just weird. The gist of the pice was "well, it's not really > much of an improvement over GP3, but we're going to go all gooey over > it anyway 'cause we worship Geoff Crammond". The text of the review > doesn't equate with the 92% (I think) they gave it at the end. > > -- > Hey, why be defeatist...? There are other sports :-) > England 2 Sri Lanka 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D > > The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard

Sebastion Melmoth <[email hidden]> wrote on 22 Jun 2002: > Does PC GamerUK ever give a bad review? <snip> Yes, it does - most issues have at least two games under 30%. Here are some examples of mediocre scores from the racing genre: CART Precision Racing 74% (Okay, not a *bad* mark, but much lower than the US mag gave it) F1-2000: 58% F1 Champ Season 2000: 43% Harley Davidson Ride Across America: 14% NASCAR Racing 3: 28% ("depressing, shoddy") Prost Grand Prix: 57% (Okay, so this is wildly overmarked...) Redline Racer: 50% Sega Touring Car: 47% They just seem to have a blind spot about Crammond games. They gave GPL 93%, incidentally, so it's unfair to blame them for the idiocies of the US mag in that particular case. -- Hey, why be defeatist...? There are other sports :-) England 2 Sri Lanka 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard

Yeh, I know where you are coming from and is why I mentioned the American version of PC Gamer. I had heard that the UK version had the ratings of those two gave more in line with reality. (Although I would not have given the CART game a rating that high because it was useless when purchased when it came to racing because of the sorry AI. They should have titled it "Presicion Hot Lapping" and just left out the racing part. But regardless of what magazine would rate GPL so much lower than that Microsoft rip-off, a person has to wonder about the people testing such games. And now it seems like PC Gamer UK might have missed the boat when they gave GP4 such a high review rating. David Buttery <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> "Card" <[email hidden]> wrote on 22 Jun 2002: > > > I remember PC Gamer in America giving Grand Prix Legends a review > > in the seventies and in the same magazine they gave CART Precision > > Racing (a joke) a score of eighty six. I knew that PC Gamer was > > helping to end future serious sims with great physic modeling with > > their ignorant review of GPL and that was the last magazine I ever > > read from them. > <snip> > > Actually, I have to stick up for PC Gamer UK here, as they gave > completely different reviews from the US magazine - 74% for CART > Precision Racing, and 93% for GPL. They're generally quite tough in > their marking, but there are one or two things (Geoff Crammond being > one) they seem to have a blind spot about. > > -- > Hey, why be defeatist...? There are other sports :-) > England 2 Sri Lanka 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D > > The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard

"Card" <[email hidden]> wrote > and that was the last magazine I ever read from them. Geoff Crammond iswell > known for putting out race games that are not completed in his effort to > make quick money and from what I have read so far with GP4, things havenot Just thought I'd point out, for the irony of it, that what PCG has always said about GC is that he delays release until the game is so perfect it should never need a patch. What a crock of BS uh. -- Frode

Sebastion Melmoth <[email hidden]> wrote on 23 Jun 2002:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On 22 Jun 2002 14:54:18 GMT, David Buttery > <[email hidden]> bleeted: > > >>F1 Champ Season 2000: 43% > > This deserved more than 43% A lot more. > > >>NASCAR Racing 3: 28% ("depressing, shoddy") > > What?? N3 was great for it's time. > > Maybe they give the scores by picking numbers out of a hat.

Here are the links to the full reviews of those two games: F1 Championship Season 2000: http://www.pcgamer.co.uk/games/gamefile_review_page.asp?item_id=6113 NASCAR Racing 3: http://www.pcgamer.co.uk/games/gamefile_review_page.asp?item_id=3533 -- Hey, why be defeatist...? There are other sports :-) England 2 Sri Lanka 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard

Thanks Frode, Did he say the game is so perfect it "should never need a patch" or "will never get a patch". Frode <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Tx8R8.901$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> "Card" <[email hidden]> wrote > > and that was the last magazine I ever read from them. Geoff Crammond is > well > > known for putting out race games that are not completed in his effort to > > make quick money and from what I have read so far with GP4, things have > not > > Just thought I'd point out, for the irony of it, that what PCG has always > said about GC is that he delays release until the game is so perfect it > should never need a patch. What a crock of BS uh. > > -- > Frode > > > >

"Card" <[email hidden]> wrote > Did he say the game is so perfect it "should never need a patch" or "will > never get a patch". Those were PCG's words, not GC's. Although I'm sure he's said something similar. The gist of it is that PCG feels Geoff is a total perfectionist. A one man coding and gamemaking army that never makes mistakes. That only releases superb quality workmanship both in features and lack of bugs. PCG really really believes that to be true. It just proves they've never really played any of the previous GP games for longer than they had to to review. :/ As for patches, look at his trackrecord (feel free to correct me if I forgot something). GP2 - 0 patches. GP3 - 1 patch. Both had serious bugs that were never addressed. I doubt GP4 will fare any better. -- Frode

What I wrote was just a joke. When you wrote "should never need a patch" I assumed that was correct and was just kidding about "will never get a patch". I am so tired of programs being released for the public to buy in a half playable condition. These sorry game developers rush things out the door knowing full well the problems that are on the CD. People should not have to wait for some downloadable patch to get a game that they paid good money for to run. What about those who are not connected to the internet? Bottom line: Many of the manufactors of programs today just do not care in the least as long as they get their money and I am really getting burned out on even buying games. I have only bought two race games in the last three years due to this. You write that Geoff is a total perfectionist. I don't doubt that is what is said of him but I would be ashamed to have my name connected to one of his products. Just the frame rate issues alone would keep me from releasing his programs. But he is not the only one out there doing this to the buying public. The key is for the public to send a loud message to developers such as this by refusing to purchase these programs. I remember about six years ago there was talk of getting Congress involved in some way. Someone needs to send these money grubbing people a stronge message of either placing a useable product in the hands of the buyer when the game is released or shut their doors. Geoff is like most all of the developers today. Take the same unfinished product, known bugs and all, slap a few more graphics on it, and release it as a full priced program when it is not much more than a high dollar unpatched effort. Long story short, I won't be sending any money towards Geoff in the near future. Frode <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:L7iR8.963$[email hidden]... > "Card" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Did he say the game is so perfect it "should never need a patch" or"will > > never get a patch". > > Those were PCG's words, not GC's. Although I'm sure he's said something > similar. The gist of it is that PCG feels Geoff is a total perfectionist.A

Quoted text (8 lines)

> one man coding and gamemaking army that never makes mistakes. That only > releases superb quality workmanship both in features and lack of bugs. > > PCG really really believes that to be true. It just proves they've never > really played any of the previous GP games for longer than they had to to > review. :/ > > As for patches, look at his trackrecord (feel free to correct me if I

forgot > something). GP2 - 0 patches. GP3 - 1 patch. Both had serious bugs thatwere

Quoted text (7 lines)

> never addressed. I doubt GP4 will fare any better. > > > -- > Frode > >

"Sebastion Melmoth" > Very pathetic review. Five very short paragraphs and it's obvious he > doesn't even like the sport of Nascar racing so shouldn't be reviewing > it in the first place. Actually, I have to say this is really one of > the worst reviews I have ever seen and if I was the publisher I would > have fired him on the spot. > One does NOT have to like a paticular form of racing to review a product. However, you must be able to put the title into perspective. i.e. how does it compare to first, other Nascar titles, and THEN how is it compared to other racing simulators. If you can't do that, you are doing your readers no service. dave henrie

I also play a lot of flight sims as well and PC Gamer reviews are a complete joke. Either they don't have any decent sim reviewers on their team or they are just plain incompetent.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Now, how predictable is that? It's not up on their website yet (perhaps >they're embarrassed...?), but I flicked through the mag in WH Smith, >and it was just weird. The gist of the pice was "well, it's not really >much of an improvement over GP3, but we're going to go all gooey over >it anyway 'cause we worship Geoff Crammond". The text of the review >doesn't equate with the 92% (I think) they gave it at the end. >

-- Robert Pollard

Sebastion Melmoth <[email hidden]> wrote on 23 Jun 2002: > If you hate the sport with no knowledge or understanding of what > it's about then the reviewer starts off the review negatively > before he/she has typed even one word.<snip> I agree - it's the worst aspect of PC Gamer UK. For example, if you read a review of a baseball game, it will spend half the time complainign that it's not a proper sport anyway. Unfortunately other UK magazines are just as bad. The only one that ever rose above this was the old Computer Gaming World (later PC Gaming World), but sadly it got swallowed up by PC Gameplay, which was just as bad :-( To refer to an earlier point of yours, though: from what I've read of the US PC Gamer, I don't think it's much better. -- Hey, why be defeatist...? There are other sports :-) England 2 Sri Lanka 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard

Card" <[email hidden]> wrote > Long story short, I won't be sending any money towards Geoff in the near > future. 1. You write "you say" a whole lot. I was quoting others' words, they were not mine (nor did I agree with them) 2. Join the club. GP4 is the first game in the GP series I do *not* intend to buy. Maybe if it gets patched to fix the most glaring omissions (yeah, like that'll happen). -- Frode

"Card" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > The key is for the public to send a loud message to developers > such as this by refusing to purchase these programs. 'The public' will never do anything. Even when +90% of the people are against something, nobody will ever actually take any action, because they can't be bothered. What would be a really good idea is to have a panel of the best reviewers in the world, each a specialist in one particular area, and when games are released the entire panel reviews them, so for something like GP4 you get an arcade racer's view, a simmers' view, and viewpoints from people who are not really interested in F1 or racing games to see if they would actually play the game. Then they rate the game on performance, functionality and code stability. Then their findings are put on the cover of all the boxes in a little box, so for GP4 you would get something like: 'This game isn't a huge update from the previous version. There are a few neat new effects, but they take quite a performance hit. The game has a few problems which detract from the gameplay, and it is unlikely (due to the developers' track record) that a patch will be released. Simulation accuracy 6/10.' This could be incorporated into a little box like you find on videos (which say stuff like: 'Bad Language: Twice, strong'). It is often said that there simply isn't enough time to review each and every game release in this manner, but if all the top reviewers from every PC games magazine were brought together to achieve this, it is easily possible. It would be like a kind of 'PC Game Seal of Quality', on a sliding scale. If a game states on the box that it is a small update, and still has problems which need fixing, then nobody will buy it, regardless of what PC Gamer UK says. Then Geoff Crammond will be forced to make better games.

"Frode" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>"David Ciemny" <[email hidden]> wrote >> I don't think the mags are as hard on racing sims as we are here. I see >some >> shaky games get decent reviews. > >The PCG preview from february of so slated it as "Geoff's new masterpiece". >Can you imagine what a sorry state that game must've been in back then? I >think they automatically label everything with "Geoff" on it as a >masterpiece. Actually one of the first things I thought after having played >GP4 a bit was "god, and this game is gonna get 90%+".

Hmm.. I�d say: deduct 5% for every full page ad from the same company/distributor in these mags, then you get a better idea of the quality of the games .. Calis

I hear ya Nick. There are many ways to address the problem as you have mentioned but I really think it will come down to people just getting tired of feeling short-changed when buying programs. I first started racing on the computer back in 1995, and since then I have noticed many people have learned to research games before they buy them. Now these people are learning that when a game is released, it might just be a glorified much hyped update. These same people are also becoming aware of what companies producing programs usually do such things to their loyal buyers. I really believe that as a few more years pass, some of the game developers will either conform to what knowledgeable buyers demand or close their doors. Take care Nick <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > "Card" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > The key is for the public to send a loud message to developers > > such as this by refusing to purchase these programs. > > 'The public' will never do anything. Even when +90% of the people are > against something, nobody will ever actually take any action, because they > can't be bothered. What would be a really good idea is to have a panel of > the best reviewers in the world, each a specialist in one particular area, > and when games are released the entire panel reviews them, so for

something

Quoted text (8 lines)

> like GP4 you get an arcade racer's view, a simmers' view, and viewpoints > from people who are not really interested in F1 or racing games to see if > they would actually play the game. Then they rate the game on performance, > functionality and code stability. Then their findings are put on the cover > of all the boxes in a little box, so for GP4 you would get something like: > > 'This game isn't a huge update from the previous version. There are a few > neat new effects, but they take quite a performance hit. The game has a

few > problems which detract from the gameplay, and it is unlikely (due to the > developers' track record) that a patch will be released. Simulationaccuracy > 6/10.' > > This could be incorporated into a little box like you find on videos(which > say stuff like: 'Bad Language: Twice, strong'). It is often said thatthere > simply isn't enough time to review each and every game release in this > manner, but if all the top reviewers from every PC games magazine were > brought together to achieve this, it is easily possible. > > It would be like a kind of 'PC Game Seal of Quality', on a sliding scale.If > a game states on the box that it is a small update, and still has problems > which need fixing, then nobody will buy it, regardless of what PC Gamer UK > says. Then Geoff Crammond will be forced to make better games. > >