Re: PC Gamer Review

On Tue 25 Jul 2000 09:34:52pm, Kieran Larkin wrote: >pc gamer gave le man a high score. Yes, but not a Gold Award. That's the difference - PC FOrmat and co are far too ready to give 90%+. -- David. (GPLRank handicap: -2.05) "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

yes in pczone they seem to not like setting stuff up. they thought le man was a hard realistic game! I brought it on this then I cried. what a foolish person I had been. -- Kieran www.pcracing.co.uk for GP3 and WSC Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I have serious doubts about these magazine reviewers when it comes to racing > sims. I believe Steve Hill of PCZone is sincere, I may not always agree, but > he gives an honest opinion. The others.... hmmm, pinch of salt. > > Jan. > =--- > M wrote... > > <snip> > > So, can I sleep easy now, safe in the knowledge that the W version is > indeed > > a beta version? > > > > Or am I just kidding myself..... > >

pc gamer gave le man a high score. -- Kieran www.pcracing.co.uk for GP3 and WSC Joona Vainio <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > David Buttery wrote: > > > > On Tue 25 Jul 2000 07:26:31pm, M wrote: > > > > <snip> > > >I emailed PC Gamer to see if the views on the net > > >reflected their experiences. The reply I got was: > > > > > >"I wouldn't worry about the quality of pirate code. We've played the > > >finished > > >version and it's superb." > > > > > >So, can I sleep easy now[?] > > <snip> > > > > Possibly. I've generally found PC Gamer to be the most reliable of the > > UK PC magazines (remember PC Format's 90% for Le Mans 24 Hours?), and > > they certainly seem to be the readiest to lay into a sub-standard game > > - I can't think of any other mag that regularly gives sub-20% scores. > > > > They also seem to be reasonably accurate when it comes to racing games. > > As with most mags, they're overly biased toward FPS and RTS games, but > > at least not to the exclusion of everything else. > > > > As a final thought, what about PC Gaming World? They tend to have the > > best sim specialists. > > -- > > David. (GPLRank handicap: -2.05) > > "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, > > really." > > (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh) > > I do suggest you all save this message in case you are interested on > rating the reliability of certain magazines. > > One way... or the other... > > -lark-

On Tue 25 Jul 2000 07:26:31pm, M wrote: <snip>

Quoted text (8 lines)

>I emailed PC Gamer to see if the views on the net >reflected their experiences. The reply I got was: > >"I wouldn't worry about the quality of pirate code. We've played the >finished >version and it's superb." > >So, can I sleep easy now[?]

<snip> Possibly. I've generally found PC Gamer to be the most reliable of the UK PC magazines (remember PC Format's 90% for Le Mans 24 Hours?), and they certainly seem to be the readiest to lay into a sub-standard game - I can't think of any other mag that regularly gives sub-20% scores. They also seem to be reasonably accurate when it comes to racing games. As with most mags, they're overly biased toward FPS and RTS games, but at least not to the exclusion of everything else. As a final thought, what about PC Gaming World? They tend to have the best sim specialists. -- David. (GPLRank handicap: -2.05) "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

I have serious doubts about these magazine reviewers when it comes to racing sims. I believe Steve Hill of PCZone is sincere, I may not always agree, but he gives an honest opinion. The others.... hmmm, pinch of salt. Jan. =--- M wrote... > <snip> > So, can I sleep easy now, safe in the knowledge that the W version isindeed > a beta version? > > Or am I just kidding myself.....

I used to subscribe to PC Gamer in the USA, but let my subscription run out as they spent waaayy to much time on FPS, RTS and turn based strategy games. When they do, do a racing/driving game review, it's typically an Arcade title rather than a SIM. Their hardware reviews are pretty good however, and ocassionaly Andy Mahood will do a decent review of a racing sim, but he tends to let his personal likes/dislikes of various forms of Auto Racing affect his reviews, and therefore isn't a non-biased/impartial source for accurate information. I'm giving PC Gaming World a chance this summer, and so far have found their reviews to be less biased and more fair/impartial. Also they don't seem to spend 70% of the magazine on strategy games, 20% on first person shooters and 10% for everything else like PC Lamer (woops I mean Gamer:-) JJ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

I haven't got the latest copy of the mag yet, but having become worried that I might as well have pre-ordered Daiakatana or spent my �30 down the pub, I emailed PC Gamer to see if the views on the net reflected their experiences. The reply I got was: "I wouldn't worry about the quality of pirate code. We've played the finished version and it's superb." So, can I sleep easy now, safe in the knowledge that the W version is indeed a beta version? Or am I just kidding myself..... Cheers, M.

David Buttery wrote:

Quoted text (30 lines)

> > On Tue 25 Jul 2000 07:26:31pm, M wrote: > > <snip> > >I emailed PC Gamer to see if the views on the net > >reflected their experiences. The reply I got was: > > > >"I wouldn't worry about the quality of pirate code. We've played the > >finished > >version and it's superb." > > > >So, can I sleep easy now[?] > <snip> > > Possibly. I've generally found PC Gamer to be the most reliable of the > UK PC magazines (remember PC Format's 90% for Le Mans 24 Hours?), and > they certainly seem to be the readiest to lay into a sub-standard game > - I can't think of any other mag that regularly gives sub-20% scores. > > They also seem to be reasonably accurate when it comes to racing games. > As with most mags, they're overly biased toward FPS and RTS games, but > at least not to the exclusion of everything else. > > As a final thought, what about PC Gaming World? They tend to have the > best sim specialists. > -- > David. (GPLRank handicap: -2.05) > "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, > really." > (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

I do suggest you all save this message in case you are interested on rating the reliability of certain magazines. One way... or the other... -lark-

The fact that the UK version of PC Gamer (and yes there is a USA version) gave Nascar racing 3 a 28% rating isn't a surprise, but it should be! On the otherhand, the US version of PC Gamer gave Toca2 a 65% or something like that, and I thought it deserved a much higher review, but.... No one cares about touring car racing in America, we have NASCAR if we want to see full bodied sedan's race. This just futher supports the argument that PC Gamer is biased, and their reviews are not impartial to the whim's and likes/dislikes of a specific type of auto racing that a game might be based on. Thus, the high review for the LeMans 24 hours game, which we all know sucked! PC Gamer USA gave it a lousy review, well below 50%, I belive somewhere in the 20-30% range if I'm not mistaken. I continue to suggest that R.A.S is the best place for racing sim/game reviews, even if you have to sift through a bunch of BS in order to form an unbiased opinion. JJ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

...or they might have had the demo on the cover disk? FrenZy Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> skrev i en nyhedsmeddelelse:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> I think they find it "manly" to drive the car "as is". Either that or > they're just plain lazy. ;-) > > Jan. > =--- > Kieran Larkin wrote... > > yes in pczone they seem to not like setting stuff up. > > they thought le man was a hard realistic game! I > > brought it on this then I cried. what a foolish > > person I had been. > > > > -- > > Kieran > > www.pcracing.co.uk for GP3 and WSC > > <snip> > >

I think they find it "manly" to drive the car "as is". Either that or they're just plain lazy. ;-) Jan. =--- Kieran Larkin wrote...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> yes in pczone they seem to not like setting stuff up. > they thought le man was a hard realistic game! I > brought it on this then I cried. what a foolish > person I had been. > > -- > Kieran > www.pcracing.co.uk for GP3 and WSC > <snip>

"M" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> I haven't got the latest copy of the mag yet, but having become worried that > I might as well have pre-ordered Daiakatana or spent my �30 down the pub, I > emailed PC Gamer to see if the views on the net reflected their experiences. > The reply I got was: > > "I wouldn't worry about the quality of pirate code. We've played the > finished > version and it's superb." > > So, can I sleep easy now, safe in the knowledge that the W version is indeed > a beta version? > > Or am I just kidding myself.....

I subscribe to PC Gamer UK, and for most of the times they get it right with racing games. They put GPL on the front cover in 98 and gave it 93 % (check out the review on : http://www.pcgamer.co.uk/games/gamefile_review_page.asp?item_id=491 ) They called SCGT a game for hardcore racers only (80%), but gave F1 2000 something around 60. N3 got 28 % for reasons unknown, maybe the reviewer didn't have a clue. I think they overrated Le Mans 24 hour a bit. On the GP3 issue, they have already made up their mind about how good this game is going to be. It has already been on the cover once, and I bet the next issue will be totally devoted to GP3 again. I do hope the final release of GP3 is reported better here, or else i will think twice before buying it (haven't downloaded it either). -- Olav K. Malmin remove spam when replying

On 26 Jul 2000 09:19:04 +0200, [email hidden] (Olav K. Malmin) thus spoke: >They called SCGT a game for hardcore racers only Well, that's a load of bullshit. > but gave F1 >2000 something around 60. Deserves more than that. Maybe the reviewer tested it on a PC that didn't have the muscle to run it and therefore decided it was crap because he couldn't play it at 4fps. Hmm, sounds like most of the people in RAS that don't like it either. > N3 got 28 % for reasons unknown, They just lost *all* credibility right there. -- Nos

[email hidden] writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On 26 Jul 2000 09:19:04 +0200, [email hidden] (Olav > K. Malmin) thus spoke: > > > >They called SCGT a game for hardcore racers only > > Well, that's a load of bullshit.

The definition of hardcore may differ. What we refer to as hardcore will be from the common people plain lunacy.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > but gave F1 > >2000 something around 60. > > Deserves more than that. Maybe the reviewer tested it on a PC that > didn't have the muscle to run it and therefore decided it was crap > because he couldn't play it at 4fps. Hmm, sounds like most of the > people in RAS that don't like it either.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, PCG use the whole scale when reviewing games, so 60 % is pretty average. > > N3 got 28 % for reasons unknown, > > They just lost *all* credibility right there. I don't think so. It is perfectly human to find something totally uninteresting, and i think the reviewer did with N3. Read for yourself on www.pcgamer.co.uk. You can search for reviews of all the games they have done. -- Olav K. Malmin remove spam when replying

On 26 Jul 2000 12:39:57 +0200, [email hidden] (Olav K. Malmin) thus spoke: >The definition of hardcore may differ. What we refer to as hardcore >will be from the common people plain lunacy. SCGT is quite accessible to all levels of players and not just the fringe elements. >As mentioned earlier in this thread, PCG use the whole scale when >reviewing games, so 60 % is pretty average. It's worthy of more than average. Especially considering the physics engine is way above GP3. >I don't think so. It is perfectly human to find something totally >uninteresting, and i think the reviewer did with N3. A reviewer is supposed to be objective. If they are not then they are in the wrong business. 28%?? pfffft! -- Nos

> K. Malmin) thus spoke: > >They called SCGT a game for *** racers only > Well, that's a load of bullshit. The definition of *** may differ. What we refer to as *** will be from the common people plain lunacy. As mentioned earlier in this thread, PCG use the whole scale when reviewing games, so 60 % is pretty average. I don't think so. It is perfectly human to find something totally uninteresting, and i think the reviewer did with N3. Read for yourself on www.pcgamer.co.uk. You can search for reviews of all the games they have done. -- Olav K. Malmin remove spam when replying

K. Malmin) thus spoke: SCGT is quite accessible to all levels of players and not just the fringe elements. It's worthy of more than average. Especially considering the physics engine is way above GP3. A reviewer is supposed to be objective. If they are not then they are in the wrong business. 28%?? pfffft! -- Nos

We are talking about a UK magazine here (at the start of the thread at least. I don't know whether there's a US version of the mag). Nascar racing is a minority interest in the UK, and outside N. America generally AFAIK. Hunting "sims" get close to zero scores over here too, they seem bizarre to us. Tony Whitley. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > >I don't think so. It is perfectly human to find something totally > >uninteresting, and i think the reviewer did with N3. > > A reviewer is supposed to be objective. If they are not then they are > in the wrong business. 28%?? pfffft!

On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:43:35 +0100, "Tony Whitley" <t o n y . w h i t l e y @ n S t P l A w M o r l d . c o m> thus spoke: >We are talking about a UK magazine here (at the start of the thread at >least. I don't know whether there's a US version of the mag). Nascar racing >is a minority interest in the UK, and outside N. America generally AFAIK. >Hunting "sims" get close to zero scores over here too, they seem bizarre to >us. Then they are not being objective. I've bought a number of import UK mags and they were all frivilous lightweight reviews injected with humour. Don't think this is a bias either.I am from the UK. BTW, none of the hunting games have got stellar reviews here either. -- Nos

On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:32:17 +0100, Weaver <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >LOL! > >Naive isn't in it. Go back to reading your Daily Mirror. Or do you prefer the Sun? Leave the more legitimate journalism to us. -- Nos

On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:10:56 +0100, Weaver <[email hidden]> thus spoke:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Found the Insert button yet? > >Nos:- " What does it do again...? " > >Journalist? > >LOL!

Insert. Must be talking about your favourite toy again. It's the 14" one that you are so fond of, right? -- Nos

On Wed 26 Jul 2000 05:18:53pm, Thomas M�rlund wrote: >...or they might have had the demo on the cover disk? Probably, but that's no reason to give a game a good review. -- David. (GPLRank handicap: -2.05) "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 20:06:37 +0100, Weaver <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Please keep you potty-mouth closed. Your gay fantasies are not my >concern. Please don't use seedy innuendo in posts directed at me >in a public newsgroup. If you don't like it then I suggest you don't make *any* comments directed at me in the future. -- Nos

"Jay J" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8lnbk6$7h$[email hidden]... > On the otherhand, the US version of PC Gamer gave Toca2 a 65% or > something like that, and I thought it deserved a much higher review, > but.... No one cares about touring car racing in America, we have > NASCAR if we want to see full bodied sedan's race. The U.S. PC Gamer gave TOCA 2 an 83% rating in their February 2000 issue.