CGW: Inside Racing this month

How bad can someone write a sim-racing article? It makes me wonder about the other articles about the genre's I'm less in tune with. 1. Crammond developed GP3, not "HAMMOND." Hehe, it's wasn't a typo either, as he said it twice. Now some people might think the new name might be appropriate, I didn't since any tongue in cheek humor. This guy should at least know who develops the game. 2. In his EA Super Bike 2001 he mentioned that the physics were dumbed down for newbie, as if it wasn't a big deal. He definitely didn't sound like the average outraged hardcore sim racer. There was further evidence of this in other parts of his section. 3. While his NASCAR Heat article was well timed, it was obviously just a rehashed version of the Hasbro press release, which he obviously didn't read very carefully because he thinks ALL the tracks are included. And oh, he noticed that papy had a game going out too on their release list, so he wrote a paragraph about that... Yes Nascar 4 is sue out before Christmas! sheesh. 4. There is a top five "mix" for all the CGW "inside" writers which in most cases are used to show these guys humor (or lack there of) He lists (1) "Deus Ex", (2)"The Sophtware (typo?) Slump" by Grandaddy, (3) The forums at fatbabies.com, (4) Napster, (5) getting to do my very first mix column!... So I assume this is his first time writing this article? Shouldn't there at least be one GPL, F12k, Pitstop II or something if he's the racing guru there? So Not only is this and inaccurate, poorly researched cookie cutter article that belongs maybe in a briefly section of a web-site, but this author shows no interest in racing games. The other inside articles show some in depth analysis of their genre's, Tom Prince shows none. I found more sim racing information in the hardware section that I haven't read, just because I know what ATI's card looks like. I could do better, and so could just about anyone who posts on this board. Even though this post is typo ridden, poorly edited and not once proofed, If I were given a month, I could most likely fine all the spelling errors, Tom can't. Give me a break.

I recommend that you forward this to the editors at CGW! Bitching about it here won't make any difference to the people who edit/produce that magazine, even though we all feel the same frustration with racing sim writers in general. Jay J Kai Fuller <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:0YBr5.38559$[email hidden]... > How bad can someone write a sim-racing article? It makes me wonder aboutthe

Quoted text (8 lines)

> other articles about the genre's I'm less in tune with. > > 1. Crammond developed GP3, not "HAMMOND." Hehe, it's wasn't a typo either, > as he said it twice. Now some people might think the new name might be > appropriate, I didn't since any tongue in cheek humor. This guy should at > least know who develops the game. > > 2. In his EA Super Bike 2001 he mentioned that the physics were dumbed

down > for newbie, as if it wasn't a big deal. He definitely didn't sound likethe > average outraged hardcore sim racer. There was further evidence of this in > other parts of his section. > > 3. While his NASCAR Heat article was well timed, it was obviously just a > rehashed version of the Hasbro press release, which he obviously didn'tread > very carefully because he thinks ALL the tracks are included. And oh, he > noticed that papy had a game going out too on their release list, so he > wrote a paragraph about that... Yes Nascar 4 is sue out before Christmas! > sheesh. > > 4. There is a top five "mix" for all the CGW "inside" writers which inmost > cases are used to show these guys humor (or lack there of) He lists (1) > "Deus Ex", (2)"The Sophtware (typo?) Slump" by Grandaddy, (3) The forumsat > fatbabies.com, (4) Napster, (5) getting to do my very first mixcolumn!... > So I assume this is his first time writing this article? Shouldn't thereat > least be one GPL, F12k, Pitstop II or something if he's the racing guru > there? > > So Not only is this and inaccurate, poorly researched cookie cutterarticle > that belongs maybe in a briefly section of a web-site, but this authorshows > no interest in racing games. The other inside articles show some in depth > analysis of their genre's, Tom Prince shows none. I found more sim racing > information in the hardware section that I haven't read, just because Iknow > what ATI's card looks like. > > I could do better, and so could just about anyone who posts on this board. > Even though this post is typo ridden, poorly edited and not once proofed,If > I were given a month, I could most likely fine all the spelling errors,Tom > can't. > > Give me a break. > >

In article <RFCr5.12976$[email hidden]>, "Jay J" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I recommend that you forward this to the editors at CGW! Bitching about it >here won't make any difference to the people who edit/produce that magazine, >even though we all feel the same frustration with racing sim writers in >general. Agreed. And they have actually had a good driving game reviewer in the past (Gordon Goble, or somesuch) and very excellent flight sim reviewers (well, I'm biased as one was a good friend, I've corresponded with at least one other, and the former editor was oft heard from in csipg-fs). CGW is going downhill (though I still subscribe and enjoy Greenspeak).

On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 16:35:02 -0700, "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote: >How bad can someone write a sim-racing article? It makes me wonder about the >other articles about the genre's I'm less in tune with. Agree! CGW used to be such an excellent mag. (At least IMO) Sure went downhill fast. I won't be renewing this time around. Although, I'll miss Jeff's page. Andy Please use [email hidden] for all email replies

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8omvqq$1a7g$[email hidden]... > In article <RFCr5.12976$[email hidden]>,"Jay J" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >I recommend that you forward this to the editors at CGW! Bitching aboutit > >here won't make any difference to the people who edit/produce thatmagazine, > >even though we all feel the same frustration with racing sim writers in > >general. > > Agreed. And they have actually had a good driving game reviewer in thepast No way. Their reviewer gave CPR 5 start (5 FREEKING STARS!!!!). I say just let them wallow in their own feces :-) I am sending all of my remaining CGW mags to my nephews. I am giving PClamer and Computer Games a shot... > (Gordon Goble, or somesuch) and very excellent flight sim reviewers (well,I'm > biased as one was a good friend, I've corresponded with at least oneother, Well Rob isn't there any more, neither is Denny. While Berg seems like a nice guy, the whole mag has totally crapped out. > and the former editor was oft heard from in csipg-fs). CGW is goingdownhill > (though I still subscribe and enjoy Greenspeak). Not me... I'm out as of Mar 2001 :-) -- [email hidden]

yeah I was just giving fair warning to people of this group about the lack of quality shown in this magazine. Jay J <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:RFCr5.12976$[email hidden]... > I recommend that you forward this to the editors at CGW! Bitching about it > here won't make any difference to the people who edit/produce thatmagazine,

Quoted text (13 lines)

> even though we all feel the same frustration with racing sim writers in > general. > > Jay J > > > Kai Fuller <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:0YBr5.38559$[email hidden]... > > How bad can someone write a sim-racing article? It makes me wonder about > the > > other articles about the genre's I'm less in tune with. > > > > 1. Crammond developed GP3, not "HAMMOND." Hehe, it's wasn't a typo

either, > > as he said it twice. Now some people might think the new name might be > > appropriate, I didn't since any tongue in cheek humor. This guy shouldat

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > least know who develops the game. > > > > 2. In his EA Super Bike 2001 he mentioned that the physics were dumbed > down > > for newbie, as if it wasn't a big deal. He definitely didn't sound like > the > > average outraged hardcore sim racer. There was further evidence of this

in

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > other parts of his section. > > > > 3. While his NASCAR Heat article was well timed, it was obviously just a > > rehashed version of the Hasbro press release, which he obviously didn't > read > > very carefully because he thinks ALL the tracks are included. And oh, he > > noticed that papy had a game going out too on their release list, so he > > wrote a paragraph about that... Yes Nascar 4 is sue out before

Christmas!

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > sheesh. > > > > 4. There is a top five "mix" for all the CGW "inside" writers which in > most > > cases are used to show these guys humor (or lack there of) He lists (1) > > "Deus Ex", (2)"The Sophtware (typo?) Slump" by Grandaddy, (3) The forums > at > > fatbabies.com, (4) Napster, (5) getting to do my very first mix > column!... > > So I assume this is his first time writing this article? Shouldn't there > at > > least be one GPL, F12k, Pitstop II or something if he's the racing guru > > there? > > > > So Not only is this and inaccurate, poorly researched cookie cutter > article > > that belongs maybe in a briefly section of a web-site, but this author > shows > > no interest in racing games. The other inside articles show some in

depth > > analysis of their genre's, Tom Prince shows none. I found more simracing > > information in the hardware section that I haven't read, just because I > know > > what ATI's card looks like. > > > > I could do better, and so could just about anyone who posts on thisboard. > > Even though this post is typo ridden, poorly edited and not onceproofed,

Quoted text (10 lines)

> If > > I were given a month, I could most likely fine all the spelling errors, > Tom > > can't. > > > > Give me a break. > > > > > >

I like PcGamer the best out of CGW and Computer games (which they keep sending me free issues of) The Sim guy at PCG actually races GPL, and whatever you might say about him, he's the magazine guy that seems to think sim racing is a good thing, and not worse than the NFS series. I would bet that if he was around when GPL was reviewed it would have at least reached the 80% range. They gave in a low 70's because it was too hard, as if some of the really highly ranked flight sims weren't hard, they shouldn't rate games on the basis of learning curve, as this usually makes a better long term game. Greg Cisko <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:IkFr5.26795$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8omvqq$1a7g$[email hidden]... > > In article <RFCr5.12976$[email hidden]>, > "Jay J" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I recommend that you forward this to the editors at CGW! Bitching about > it > > >here won't make any difference to the people who edit/produce that > magazine, > > >even though we all feel the same frustration with racing sim writers in > > >general. > > > > Agreed. And they have actually had a good driving game reviewer in the > past > > No way. Their reviewer gave CPR 5 start (5 FREEKING STARS!!!!). > > I say just let them wallow in their own feces :-) I am sending all of my > remaining > CGW mags to my nephews. I am giving PClamer and Computer Games a > shot... > > > (Gordon Goble, or somesuch) and very excellent flight sim reviewers

(well,

Quoted text (23 lines)

> I'm > > biased as one was a good friend, I've corresponded with at least one > other, > > Well Rob isn't there any more, neither is Denny. While Berg seems like a > nice > guy, the whole mag has totally crapped out. > > > and the former editor was oft heard from in csipg-fs). CGW is going > downhill > > (though I still subscribe and enjoy Greenspeak). > > Not me... I'm out as of Mar 2001 :-) > > > -- > > [email hidden] > > > > >

Kai Fuller <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:0YBr5.38559$[email hidden]... > How bad can someone write a sim-racing article? It makes me wonder aboutthe

Quoted text (8 lines)

> other articles about the genre's I'm less in tune with. > > 1. Crammond developed GP3, not "HAMMOND." Hehe, it's wasn't a typo either, > as he said it twice. Now some people might think the new name might be > appropriate, I didn't since any tongue in cheek humor. This guy should at > least know who develops the game. > > 2. In his EA Super Bike 2001 he mentioned that the physics were dumbed

down > for newbie, as if it wasn't a big deal. He definitely didn't sound likethe > average outraged hardcore sim racer. There was further evidence of this in > other parts of his section. > > 3. While his NASCAR Heat article was well timed, it was obviously just a > rehashed version of the Hasbro press release, which he obviously didn'tread > very carefully because he thinks ALL the tracks are included. And oh, he > noticed that papy had a game going out too on their release list, so he > wrote a paragraph about that... Yes Nascar 4 is sue out before Christmas! > sheesh. > > 4. There is a top five "mix" for all the CGW "inside" writers which inmost > cases are used to show these guys humor (or lack there of) He lists (1) > "Deus Ex", (2)"The Sophtware (typo?) Slump" by Grandaddy, (3) The forumsat > fatbabies.com, (4) Napster, (5) getting to do my very first mixcolumn!... > So I assume this is his first time writing this article? Shouldn't thereat > least be one GPL, F12k, Pitstop II or something if he's the racing guru > there? > > So Not only is this and inaccurate, poorly researched cookie cutterarticle > that belongs maybe in a briefly section of a web-site, but this authorshows > no interest in racing games. The other inside articles show some in depth > analysis of their genre's, Tom Prince shows none. I found more sim racing > information in the hardware section that I haven't read, just because Iknow > what ATI's card looks like. > > I could do better, and so could just about anyone who posts on this board. > Even though this post is typo ridden, poorly edited and not once proofed,If > I were given a month, I could most likely fine all the spelling errors,Tom > can't. > > Give me a break. > If you want an accurate knowledgeable review or article about sim racing look to the sim racing sites... the well known an respected ones. I've pretty much given up on buying PC mags (gaming ones) as they usually contain very little except for lots of unwanted ads, cheats that never work and a load on unresearched articles. They seem to know a little about the Lara Croft 3d world shoot'em'up type of games but nothing about hardcore sim racing or any other sort of gaming community. I mean, I could write a review of Quake II after a couple of hours of play but I'd damn sure be flamed for it by the online Quake community... it just wouldn't be accurate. If gaming mags want to be taken seriously they should really hire people with a genuine interest in the type of games they review. Most of the guys seem to be just there and review any sim they are told to without knowing the actual behind the scenes stuff. It doesn't make sense, but then again, people obviously buy these mags so why should they bother to go to the trouble if their sales aren't down..oh well.... stick to the Sim racing online stuff an you won't go far wrong, better yet it doesn't cost you �50 a year to subscribe to about 6-7 inaccurate racing articles... :-)

In article <8orga5$532$[email hidden]>, "9Wright7" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>I mean, I could write a review of Quake II after a couple of hours of play >but I'd damn sure be flamed for it by the online Quake community... it just >wouldn't be accurate. > >If gaming mags want to be taken seriously they should really hire people >with a genuine interest in the type of games they review. Most of the guys >seem to be just there and review any sim they are told to without knowing >the actual behind the scenes stuff.

Maybe that's done on purpose, to give a newbie's impression of a game...? Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <0YBr5.38559$[email hidden]>, "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> writes: >I could do better, and so could just about anyone who posts on this board. >Even though this post is typo ridden, poorly edited and not once proofed, If >I were given a month, I could most likely fine all the spelling errors, Tom >can't. How ironic - "I could most likely *fine* all the spelling errors" ?<g> Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Andy Mahood is the guy from PC Gamer and I think he also does some stuff for CNET's www.gamecenter.com but he also covers flying sim's so every other issue has a one page article about racing, and every other month it's flying sim's... Andy does some of the racing reviews, but unfortunately not all for PC Lamer, woops I mean Gamer ;-) Frankly, I got tired of PC Gamer spending about 50% of their magazine on strategy/war/fantasy style games, about 40% of their time on first person shooters (yuk) and the reaming 10% is reserved for everything else :-( And... If Mahood wasn't doing the review, than any racing game that's not purely arcade gets a low rating, what a joke! Jay J Kai Fuller <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:CjZr5.330571$[email hidden]... > I like PcGamer the best out of CGW and Computer games (which they keep > sending me free issues of) The Sim guy at PCG actually races GPL, and > whatever you might say about him, he's the magazine guy that seems tothink

Quoted text (13 lines)

> sim racing is a good thing, and not worse than the NFS series. I would bet > that if he was around when GPL was reviewed it would have at least reached > the 80% range. They gave in a low 70's because it was too hard, as if some > of the really highly ranked flight sims weren't hard, they shouldn't rate > games on the basis of learning curve, as this usually makes a better long > term game. > > > Greg Cisko <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:IkFr5.26795$[email hidden]... > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:8omvqq$1a7g$[email hidden]... > > > In article

<RFCr5.12976$[email hidden]>, > > "Jay J" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >I recommend that you forward this to the editors at CGW! Bitchingabout > > it > > > >here won't make any difference to the people who edit/produce that > > magazine, > > > >even though we all feel the same frustration with racing sim writersin > > > >general. > > > > > > Agreed. And they have actually had a good driving game reviewer inthe

Quoted text (36 lines)

> > past > > > > No way. Their reviewer gave CPR 5 start (5 FREEKING STARS!!!!). > > > > I say just let them wallow in their own feces :-) I am sending all of my > > remaining > > CGW mags to my nephews. I am giving PClamer and Computer Games a > > shot... > > > > > (Gordon Goble, or somesuch) and very excellent flight sim reviewers > (well, > > I'm > > > biased as one was a good friend, I've corresponded with at least one > > other, > > > > Well Rob isn't there any more, neither is Denny. While Berg seems like a > > nice > > guy, the whole mag has totally crapped out. > > > > > and the former editor was oft heard from in csipg-fs). CGW is going > > downhill > > > (though I still subscribe and enjoy Greenspeak). > > > > Not me... I'm out as of Mar 2001 :-) > > > > > > -- > > > > [email hidden] > > > > > > > > > > > >