CART Review from Vault

Hello! I am the writer of The Adrenaline Vault's CART Precision Racing review. First, let me set the record straight -- we are not sleeping with anyone at Microsoft. :) The review I wrote was based on my honest response to the game after approximately 20 hours of vigorous gameplay. I thoroughly enjoyed the title and consider it deserving of high praise. I have read the critiques of the game (and my review) in your newsgroup, and feel that many of the comments are very fair and show a great deal of insight into the workings of what makes a good, or a defective, racing simulation. Your response is certainly appreciated. I hope you will not allow one very significant difference of opinion to alter your over-all impressions of our site. All of the writers are to dedicated to generating accurate, informed, and intelligent reviews. We are hard-core gamers, and strive to deliver the best editorial content on the Internet. This time I sided firmly with the minority. Why not stick around and see what happens next? I would argue that you would agree with a majority of our reviews. David Laprad Staff Writer/Reviewer The Adrenaline Vault [link lost in import] The Web's Ultimate *** Site! Phone: (615) 597-8128 Address: 370 Smith Road, Smithville, TN 37166

Hi David, Interesting that it was felt necessary to show up here to comment upon the review (I hesitate to use the term "justify", but it's hard not to). I personally felt that the review was extremely overgenerous, but perhaps this is not surprising if favour needs to be curried, and that in a profession where a "bad" rating generally means "less than 80%" (not directed at you, just a general observation of magazine and web reviews). CPR is undoubtedly "fun", but then so is Carmageddon but that doesn't make it a racing simulation. To properly review a simulation with consideration of the target market, how true it is to the real-life experience must be considered alongside the fun factor, as well as how each component compares to what has already been achieve in the genre. Take a look at Philip McNelley's excellent post from earlier today outlining what sim fans expect from a product classified as a "sim", rather than as a "game". It boggles my mind how anyone could try Indycar Racing 2's AI and driving model around any of the ovals, and then still consider CPR as being ready to take Papyrus' crown. This is not to knock you, MS, TRI, CPR or whoever, but I do feel strongly that reviewers have a duty to be honest with their readers, and consider very carefully before they spend people's money for them. In this case, IMO, Avault's review was so far off base that I have trouble assigning it purely to differences in opinion. Given your above post I suppose it must be, and perhaps we focus on the details far more than Avault, where reviews are done on many different types of game. I never looked at Avault's reviews before, and the review of CPR is unlikely to make me do so now - I suppose nothing lost for you :) I tend to prefer Games Domain's style of having the reviews submitted by fans, since these reviews tend to be more in depth and done by people with detailed knowledge of the type of product they are reviewing, and how it will appeal to others that share their interest. Again no comment on you personally, I'm speaking only considering my own experience. I know that if someone asked me to review a flight-sim I'd decline, since I know absolutely nothing about them and couldn't hope to do it justice. Thanks for taking the time to comment, Best Regards, John (Sim Racing News)

: I am the writer of The Adrenaline Vault's CART Precision Racing review. : This time I sided firmly with the minority. Apology excepted. ;) -- -------------------------------------

Quoted text (8 lines)

> My main problem with the review is that it is inconsistent, incorrect, and > very misleading. You may have enjoyed the title, but the review criteria > does not make sense. You said in your post: > >The review I wrote was based on my honest response to the > >game after approximately 20 hours of vigorous gameplay > How can you honestly say that quote,

It's a review for CART-P(ublic) R(elations)... ;^) l8er ronny -- |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

Date: 20 Nov 1997 23:52:59 GMT About: Re: CART Review from Vault [e-mailed and posted, please reply to rec.autos.simulators if possible] I have not personally checked out the CPR review on avault, but dit the reviewer actually post a 8 MB Voodoo card as a part of his system specs? A typo then, or complete incompetence. Flash 3D is a 4 MB card. There are NO 8 MB cards based on Voodoo Graphics.

<large snips> While I cannot disagree with your assessment of the sim or AI aspects of CPS, I had a very different experience with the visuals. My framerates on a P200 with 32 MB RAM and a Monster 3D card (hardly a super system) were good. No terrain popping, decent frame rates, and great visuals. The "angora sweater" fuzzing common to mediocre 3D programming was noticable in the cars, however. Your implication that the reviewer is just lying about his visual impressions is unacceptable. As for the overall structure of CPS, I thought the garage elements (the "smart" mechanic) were quite good, and the game is a good first try that's fun in spite of some obvious short-comings. Frankly, there are things it does better than ICR2. It must also be noted that Sierra/Papyrus continue to***users of 3Dfx cards by developing for Rendition only (which, of course, is at the heart of Sierra's Screamin' card). TLMcD

Quoted text (13 lines)

>> My main problem with the review is that it is inconsistent, incorrect, and >> very misleading. You may have enjoyed the title, but the review criteria >> does not make sense. You said in your post: >> >The review I wrote was based on my honest response to the >> >game after approximately 20 hours of vigorous gameplay >> How can you honestly say that quote, >It's a review for CART-P(ublic) R(elations)... ;^) >l8er >ronny

This game is proof positive that MS and Intel are using collusion- Direct3D doesn't do half the stuff it should, so what do you need- more sh!t from Intel. Low frame rate?? Buy a Pentium MCMXXLVII, with the new whiz-bang motherboard that only works with this specific processor.....frigging typical from MS. No matter that somebody else wrote the game, if Big Bill's name is on it, rest assured it runs like sh!t on anything. And you wonder why the OS/2 crowd is so critical of Microsoft....

>It must also be noted that Sierra/Papyrus continue to***users of >3Dfx cards by developing for Rendition only (which, of course, is at >the heart of Sierra's Screamin' card). NASCAR Racing 2? - 3dFX SODA Off Road racing? - 3dFX Grand Prix Legends? - 3dFX Developers are far from stupid, and if enough people demand support then there is no option but to follow that. Remember too that these people are also fans of racing sims, and want their games to be everything that they can make them. If that means using 3dFX then it shall be so, if it is at all possible. Why else do you think MS/TRI are looking into a Glide version of CART Precision Racing after the D3D version was so badly received? All we need now is some 3dFX support for GP2 and we'll be laughing. Mind you, F1 Racing Simulation is doing a pretty fine job so far. Cheers! John

>NASCAR Racing 2? - 3dFX >SODA Off Road racing? - 3dFX >Grand Prix Legends? - 3dFX >Cheers! >John John, I will be delighted if SODA and ICR2 had 3Dfx patches, and will humbly admit my error. Please tell me where I can get them, since I'd love to see what these games look like with 3D support, and so I can eat my words. Tom

ICR2 won't be patched. The other patches aren't available yet. It does appear to be true that Sierra/Papyrus is finally starting to see the [3dfx] light, but it is also true that they will be one of the last large game companies on the planet to offer support for this technology. And to be fair, the 3dfx Nascar2 patch would NOT be done if it was up to Papyrus, 3dfx is doing that. Papyrus makes great auto sims, but so far their lack of support for leading 3d cards has been very disappointing. Joe

>technology. And to be fair, the 3dfx Nascar2 patch would NOT be done >if it was up to Papyrus, 3dfx is doing that. Papyrus makes great auto >sims, but so far their lack of support for leading 3d cards has been >very disappointing. Quoted from 3dfx groups, comment by 3dFX representative... Looks like we still have quite a lot to thank the Papyrus guys for, but a lot more to thank ourselves for. If it hadn't been for the pressure from areas like this group I doubt it would have happened. To be fair, every producer wants their game to be the best and to have all the support it can. I'm sure Papyrus were no different with NASCAR2, and at the time of laying out the product they had to make a decision which 3D cards to support. Having already had experience with Rendition thanks to ICR2 it was the logical step, although as we know now it was the wrong one. That's readily apparent with hindisght, but at the time 3dFX cards were two or three times the price of Rendition, and unlikely to make any major steps into the market. As for why it took so long to support 3dFX, when you consider what the possible answers are then it's pretty obvious we're unlikely to ever find out (that doesn't mean simply the obvious - think about it for a while). We're now getting 3dFX, and just in time for dual-card Voodoo2 solutions - anyone fancy 120fps around the original Nurburgring?! :) Cheers! John

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Looks like we still have quite a lot to thank the Papyrus guys for, > but a lot more to thank ourselves for. If it hadn't been for the > pressure from areas like this group I doubt it would have happened. To > be fair, every producer wants their game to be the best and to have > all the support it can. I'm sure Papyrus were no different with > NASCAR2, and at the time of laying out the product they had to make a > decision which 3D cards to support. Having already had experience with > Rendition thanks to ICR2 it was the logical step, although as we know > now it was the wrong one. That's readily apparent with hindisght, but > at the time 3dFX cards were two or three times the price of Rendition, > and unlikely to make any major steps into the market.

A 3Dfx was not 2 or 3 times the price of a Rendition at the time. Inter***Reactor and Sierra 'Screamer both were going for $199. My 3Dfx card cost me $249 at the time. Sierra made the call on this one I'd bet, not Papy. Papy wasn't selling a Rendition card, but Sierra was trying to.

>I will be delighted if SODA and ICR2 had 3Dfx patches, and will humbly >admit my error. Please tell me where I can get them, since I'd love >to see what these games look like with 3D support, and so I can eat my >words. No 3dFX support for ICR2, but SODA, NASCAR Racing 2 and Grand Prix Legends will have. Last I heard NASCAR 2 patch was expected around Christmas, SODA patch after that, and Grand Prix Legends in 1998. It'll be a wee while before you can tuck into those words of yours...! Cheers! John

Quoted text (15 lines)

>>I will be delighted if SODA and ICR2 had 3Dfx patches, and will humbly >>admit my error. Please tell me where I can get them, since I'd love >>to see what these games look like with 3D support, and so I can eat my >>words. >ICR2 won't be patched. The other patches aren't available yet. It does >appear to be true that Sierra/Papyrus is finally starting to see the >[3dfx] light, but it is also true that they will be one of the last >large game companies on the planet to offer support for this >technology. And to be fair, the 3dfx Nascar2 patch would NOT be done >if it was up to Papyrus, 3dfx is doing that. Papyrus makes great auto >sims, but so far their lack of support for leading 3d cards has been >very disappointing. >Joe

I'm a bit surprised by the attitude of 3DFX owners who seem to think Papyrus owes it to them to develop patches for their proprietry card. If Payrus chooses to support a platform then it is to sell games. Otherwise they go out of business. The only reason for 3DFX to develop a Nascar2 patch is because they see the popularity of the game propping up rendition sales. I bought a rendition card for Nascar2 and Icr2. 3DFX want to remove that last reason for buying rendition cards. Papyrus have been developing sims with the Speedy3D interface for a while now. Their fans have bought rendition cards to play these Papyrus games. If Papryus were to have any perceived duty then it would be to these customers. As it is there is already plenty of reasons to buy a 3DFX, and I have done so. I look forward to the 3DFX patches of these games with anticipation. BTW I don't think there'll be an icr2 3dfx patch and I don't think anyone ever promised one. Brian

>I'm a bit surprised by the attitude of 3DFX owners who seem to think >Papyrus owes it to them to develop patches for their proprietry card. I don't know why, since no one thinks that. I'm just pointing out that their business planning surrounding 3d cards has been extremely poor, and as a result they are trailing the pack in 3D support. Joe

> >I'm a bit surprised by the attitude of 3DFX owners who seem to think > >Papyrus owes it to them to develop patches for their proprietry card. > I don't know why, since no one thinks that. I'm just pointing out that > their business planning surrounding 3d cards has been extremely poor, > and as a result they are trailing the pack in 3D support. Well...I don't think they "owe it to me", but I really think they missed out on an opportunity to make their *NEW* CART Racing something really worth buying...a Glide-enabled ICR2 would've cracked my wallet for sure...and full price, I might add (with the book..:) ). -- Neil Yeatman Ajax, Ontario, CANADA

>>I'm a bit surprised by the attitude of 3DFX owners who seem to think >>Papyrus owes it to them to develop patches for their proprietry card. >I don't know why, since no one thinks that. I'm just pointing out that >their business planning surrounding 3d cards has been extremely poor, >and as a result they are trailing the pack in 3D support. The business planning of _who_ has been poor.....? We don't know. Leastaways they're catching up now, someone, somewhere (in summertime) having seen the light. Rejoice. Cheers! John

>The business planning of _who_ has been poor.....? We don't know. ??? Papyrus/Sierra. Well, I hope not that long! I'll be rejoicing as soon as there's a decent 3dfx racer, which should be N2 3dfx around Xmas. Joe

>Well...I don't think they "owe it to me", but I really think they missed >out on an opportunity to make their *NEW* CART Racing something really >worth buying...a Glide-enabled ICR2 would've cracked my wallet for >sure...and full price, I might add (with the book..:) ). Ditto. I'm not even a big CART fan, but I would have bought it with 3dfx support. Joe

Nanker Pheldge enlightened the world with this pearl of wisdom... Not true. I spoke with Dave Kaemmer a couple of years ago when he was pledging support for the Rendition at the Computer Game Developer's Conference. At the time, it was the clear leader in both support and features. 3Dfx was barely getting up to speed. They just guessed wrong. -- -------------------------------- editor - computer games strategy plus | www.cdmag.com "I need to hear some sounds that recognize the pain in me, I let the melody shine/let it cleanse my mind/I feel free, But the airwaves are clean and there's nobody singing to me, now." -The Verve "Bitter Sweet Symphony"

>>The business planning of _who_ has been poor.....? We don't know. >??? >Papyrus/Sierra. Thank you, my point exactly. Why flame Papyrus when you don't know what decisions were made where, or by whom. You can only work within the constraints which are laid down, and it surprises folk are quick to put the boot in without taking a moment to consider if they really know what they say they know. Actually we already have F1 Racing Simulation, which is already a more than decent 3dFX racer, excellent in fact. Like any other product it has it's niggles, but on the whole it's very good. I'd recommend it. Cheers! John

>Thank you, my point exactly. Why flame Papyrus when you don't know >what decisions were made where, or by whom. You can only work within >the constraints which are laid down, and it surprises folk are quick >to put the boot in without taking a moment to consider if they really >know what they say they know. Why rush to defend Papyrus when you have no more information that I? You should heed your own words. You're not talking about Psygnosis F1 are you? I hope not - the thing doesn't even have analog device support. Perhaps you're talking about UBI F1 - that won't be out for months here. Joe

On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 01:47:00 -0500, Nanker Pheldge >A 3Dfx was not 2 or 3 times the price of a Rendition at the time. >Inter***Reactor and Sierra 'Screamer both were going for $199. My >3Dfx card cost me $249 at the time. Remember that the decision would not have been taken when you saw the product on the store shelves, it would be taken many months before. Possibly at that time 3dFX and Rendition were not yet on the market, but when they came on the market the first prices I recall were $299 for 3dFX and $149 for Rendition (or perhaps even $99 for introductory period?). Probably, although at that time Rendition also looked good. No-one knew about 3D carda at that time, and the abilities of either card looked stunning compared to the SVGA jerk-o-vision we were used to. If I were Papy and I saw a card priced to sell and with very good abilities I'd probably have gone the same route. A card costing $299 PLUS the price of a 2D board to pair with it wouldn't have looked a promising prospect I should say. 20-20 hindsight is marvellous, it's predicting the future and how it will affect you that's important. Look at how the DRAM price crash surprised a lot of business strategies. How many industry experts saw that coming? Cheers! John

>Why rush to defend Papyrus when you have no more information that I? >You should heed your own words. Joe, please read carefully what I'm saying before responding. All I am saying is that you shouldn't state as gospel something which is not correct - I am _not_ defending Papyrus. You are stating as fact something which you don't know to be correct, that Papyrus made a bad decision over 3D support. So what do we really know? We know that a bad decision was made, and we know that it has affected the implementation of 3dFX support in some products we are interested in. We don't know WHO made such a decision, we don't know WHY, we don't know WHEN, we don't know WHAT was the market condition at that time, we don't know HOW that has truly affected their overall market, or if indeed such a decision served to generate more profits through increased sales of Rendition cards than it would have through sales of the software. We even don't know that we wouldn't have made exactly the same decision, given the factors which were known at that time. IMO it's therefore simply not on to pillory a company for something we don't understand. In short, we don't know. BTW I would equally defend MS/TRI if they were attacked for adopting D3D rather than Glide for CPR. I'm not defending the company themselves or their decision, since I too would far prefer Glide or some other form of effective use of 3dFX. Realistically though,what would you expect them to use, given that D3D is their technology? If they were to avoid D3D how could they hope to persuade other software companies of it's viability? All I am defending their right to make that decision, and for the pacts to be portrayed correctly. (That was longer than intended! Just so we're clear what we're arguing about!) :) Yes Ubi-F1. It's out here, it has 3dFX, it's a bona-fide sim and it's _lovely_. Go rattle Ubi's cage and have them release it in the US. After all, you guys had SODA before us, we don't even have CPR and we're _never_ going to get the BGN pack. Don't expect any sympathy for not having Ubi F1 yet :-) BTW Psy-F1 does have analogue device support. Cheers! John

% A 3Dfx was not 2 or 3 times the price of a Rendition at the time. % Inter***Reactor and Sierra 'Screamer both were going for $199. My % 3Dfx card cost me $249 at the time. % Sierra made the call on this one I'd bet, not Papy. Papy wasn't selling % a Rendition card, but Sierra was trying to. This was a "programming" decision more than a marketing ploy for Sierra's interest in the 3d video accelerator. When they started looking at making 3d accelerated products they were sold on the quality and speed that could be gotten from the Verite chipset and instructions. They picked the wrong fork in the road at this junction. I am sure had they been able to gaze into the crystal ball, they would have chosen another path. Also another reason they chose to go with the Verite based cards was that 3dfx was behind other 3d accelerator cards in getting to the market. At the time they chose, Verite was the best choice (think about it and go back in time and look at the other 3d cards that were available or were just becoming available, if you do, I think you should be able to understand Papyrus' decision). Of course many of you won't or can't see it this way. As to the matter of Sierra supporting the Rendition over other 3d cards. . . Well if Papyrus had made their decision to go with Rendition because of this, then they sorely made the wrong decision for the wrong reason. Had they even considered Sierra's support for this hardware and looked at Sierra's track record (Ad-Lib over SoundBlaster), well they would have surely picked another 3d chipset to support. [for the reading-challenged, the last paragraph is pure sarcasm. However, it does contain a ton of truth. <G>] Also for the record, I am not "kissing" Papyrus's ass. I don't receive anything from them except excellent racing sims (just like the rest of you). I have never received any special favors from Papyrus. My interest in posting what I do is to set the record straight. And on occasions (for those who haven't been in r.a.s. for along time), setting the record straight has meant getting on Papyrus' case when the facts warrant it. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>% A 3Dfx was not 2 or 3 times the price of a Rendition at the time. >% Inter***Reactor and Sierra 'Screamer both were going for $199. My >% 3Dfx card cost me $249 at the time. While the Reactor was initially retailed for $199, it was quickly dropped to $149 and anyone who bought one at the higher price got a refund. As far as setting the record straight on this... Michael, what was the sequence of events of these events? * Papyrus began working with Rendition and ported ICR2 (sometime in the first half of '96?, public discussion or it in June '96) * Sierra bought out Papyrus (this was around Feb - March '96) Which happened first? I'm under the impression that Papyrus' initial commitment to Rendition predated their merger with Sierra, thus was unrelated to Sierra marketing their own Rendition card (probably more the other way around, ie: Papyrus turned Sierra on to the possibilities of the Rendition chipset). Sierra's hardware commitment might have slowed Papyrus' move to the 3Dfx camp, although you might also chalk that up as loyalty to their existing Rendition customers... Before you send me UCE, I know what you're thinking... Did he complain to five or six postmasters last month? Now, you must ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do you, punk?

>You are stating as fact something which you don't know to be correct, >that Papyrus made a bad decision over 3D support. I certainly do know that do be correct, because of the indisputable FACT that they are far behind most other developers in 3D support. It's coming (in the new year) I've heard, and it does sound like a nice sim. Looking forward to it. I meant it doesn't have *working* analog device support. Joe

Quoted text (18 lines)

> I'm a bit surprised by the attitude of 3DFX owners who seem to think > Papyrus owes it to them to develop patches for their proprietry card. > If Payrus chooses to support a platform then it is to sell games. > Otherwise they go out of business. The only reason for 3DFX to develop > a Nascar2 patch is because they see the popularity of the game propping > up rendition sales. I bought a rendition card for Nascar2 and Icr2. > 3DFX want to remove that last reason for buying rendition cards. > Papyrus have been developing sims with the Speedy3D interface for a while > now. Their fans have bought rendition cards to play these Papyrus games. If > Papryus were to have any perceived duty then it would be to these customers. > As it is there is already plenty of reasons to buy a 3DFX, and I have done so. > I look forward to the 3DFX patches of these games with anticipation. BTW I > don't think there'll be an icr2 3dfx patch and I don't think anyone ever > promised one. > Brian

Something I cant understand is that Sierra have just realeased CART (ICR2) and it's simply ICR2 with a Rendition patch that has been on their site for as long as I can remember. Surely that is a testament to how much they want to sell the Screamer thing. Quite pitiful I thought. --

>>You are stating as fact something which you don't know to be correct, >>that Papyrus made a bad decision over 3D support. >I certainly do know that do be correct, because of the indisputable >FACT that they are far behind most other developers in 3D support. BAsed upon the fact that Sierra are perceived to be behind in 3D support, you can conclude that Papyrus made a wrong decision? A little bit of advice - don't put that particular piece of logical deduction on your resume.... I'm afraid I can only respond to what you said, not what you thought you were saying. Cheers! John

>BAsed upon the fact that Sierra are perceived to be behind in 3D >support, you can conclude that Papyrus made a wrong decision? A little >bit of advice - don't put that particular piece of logical deduction >on your resume.... A bit of advice to you ... DO put "political spin doctor" on yours. You seem quite expert and twisting words and making up imaginary meanings and arguments for other people. Have fun. Joe

>A bit of advice to you ... DO put "political spin doctor" on yours. >You seem quite expert and twisting words and making up imaginary >meanings and arguments for other people. Have fun. Well, that is my day job actually. Mind you, you don't seem exactly lacking in that department yourself Joe, take it from one who knows :) It is said (Nietsche I think, or perhaps Astermeyer?) that one and two are simply the same thing viewed from different standpoints. There is always another point-of-view, and exactly equal in value to your own if you have any faith in the brain boys who dreamed up the concept. It's being open enough to allow yourself to consider them that's the tough part. Cheers! John