Another suspect CPR Review - Operation 3DFX

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 »

reviews made by gamers for gamers, visit [link lost in import] They have very good reviews of both CART Precision Racing and ABC Road to Indy, I think you'll find the same can be said of my reviews Digital Sportspage. You don't have to trash a game in its entirety to be "un-biased, fact-based intelligent", you know. That seems to be the criteria by which those that hate a game judge a review. If it does nothing but trash the game, its an "un-biased, fact-based, intelligent" review, but if it dares mention positive features, then the reviewers suck, the reviewers are bought off, etc. I just wrote probably the nastiest review I've ever written, for NCAA Gamebreaker 98 for the Playstation. You should check it out. If I felt CART deserved GB98 treatment, it would have gotten it. I suggest you read both the Gamebreaker 98 and CART reviews at Digital Sportspage and then come back and tell me I'm just biased. be the best looking site, but it is much more professional and informative than any of those commercial *** sites.>> besides Digital Sportspage, that is :) Randy Randy Magruder Staff Writer Digital Sportspage [link lost in import]

>I think you'll find the same can be said of my reviews Digital Sportspage. You >don't have to trash a game in its entirety to be "un-biased, fact-based >intelligent", you know. No, but you do have to honestly communicate the flaws. Obviously the Op3dfx review fails utterly to do that. Joe

I don't think they trashed the game, and I think you have had enough contact with me personally to know that is not the criteria I use to tell if a review is worth its salt. By the way, I do not hate CPR. I just think that it is getting exceptionally good, undeserved reviews by MOST of the commercial *** sites and mags. Your review at Digital Sportspage was actually very good and informative as well. But I have already had countless posts and e-mails about that directly to you, and in r.a.s. Remember my formal apology to you regarding the ABC Road to Indy/CPR thread from a couple weeks ago? Again, that is not what I was saying, and most certainly did not mean to imply that. I agree there needs to be more balanced posting of positives and negatives in reviews, but do you disagree that both The Adrenaline Vault and Operation 3DFX reviews were overly positive in their evaluations? That was the point of my post. What I was pointing out was a review that is ridiculously positive, just like you have pointed out reviews and posts that tend to focus only on the negative. My beef with the aforementioned reviews is that they not only miss the negatives, but in some cases completely mislead the consumer. Do you really feel that I am that off-base? Cool, I did read it and I completely agree with your review of Gamebreaker 98, as I have had the game since it came out. I have been just as frustrated about the *** press gushing over CPR, as you are about it gushing over Gamebreaker 98. Again, I have been an avid reader of Digital Sportspage for months and I have made that clear before. Your review of both CPR and Road to Indy 500 are good and unbiased. Anyone trying to decide on CPR as a purchase would be good to start out there. ([link lost in import] Don Chapman

<< I don't think they trashed the game, and I think you have had enough contact with me personally to know that is not the criteria I use to tell if a review is worth its salt.>> The reason I wrote what I did was that it seemed like you were saying that Game Pad was the ONLY place to find a decent review on the 'net, and of course I would differ with that :) << By the way, I do not hate CPR. I just think that it is getting exceptionally good, undeserved reviews by MOST of the commercial *** sites and mags. Agreed 100%. I'm disgusted by the reviews that I read! Road to Indy/CPR thread from a couple weeks ago?>> I'm sure I do, but I might not have associated the name with the post. Its hard to keep straight sometimes all the people I e-mail with. I apologize. >> Again, that is not what I was saying, and most certainly did not mean to imply that. I agree there needs to be more balanced posting of positives and negatives in reviews, but do you disagree that both The Adrenaline Vault and Operation 3DFX reviews were overly positive in their evaluations?>> No. Those two reviews were a joke. Anyone who knows anything about racing sims know a puff piece when they see one! No, just you didn't mention the other side of the coin in your post :) >> Cool, I did read it and I completely agree with your review of Gamebreaker 98, as I have had the game since it came out. << Thank God I'm not alone! << I have been just as frustrated about the *** press gushing over CPR, as you are about it gushing over Gamebreaker 98. Again, I have been an avid reader of Digital Sportspage for months and I have made that clear before. Your review of both CPR and Road to Indy 500 are good and unbiased. Anyone trying to decide on CPR as a purchase would be good to start out there. ([link lost in import] Thanks! Perhaps we need to make a standard "recommended review site" list and include Digital Sportspage and Gamepad. Go directly there. Do not pass Avault and do not collect $200 :) Randy Randy Magruder Staff Writer Digital Sportspage [link lost in import]

review fails utterly to do that. >> Agreed. I did not mean to come off sounding like I was defending those puff pieces. Just wanted to get in that Gamepad isn't the only good place in town to get honest, fairly unbiased reviews. Digital Sportspage is pretty religious. You should see my NCAA Gamebreaker 98 review. I'm already putting on layers of flame-proof clothing :) Randy Randy Magruder Staff Writer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com/

Thanks for the comments about Game Pad. We do try to be unbiased in our reviews and we do actually buy our own games to review. Anyone on this site interested in writing reviews is welcome to contact us. While I may not always agree with Randy at Digital Sports, I do believe that his reviews are very thorough and well balanced. When I am on the fence about purchasing a particular game and he already has a review out, then that is one of the places I know I can go to get an intelligent review. I just wish there were more sites like that, which is why I started The Game Pad in the first place. Back to F1RS. ( I know I promised a review on it this week, but...well..ummm....I'm having too much time racing to write one now. Next week I promise.( he says with fingers crossed his behind back) Lets Go Racing, Ken The Game Pad http://gamepad.org/

I meant to say anyone is this newsgroup, not site. Sorry for the confusion. > Anyone on this site interested in writing reviews is welcome to contact > us. Lets Go Racing, > Ken > The Game Pad > http://gamepad.org/

>Agreed. I did not mean to come off sounding like I was defending those puff >pieces. Just wanted to get in that Gamepad isn't the only good place in town >to get honest, fairly unbiased reviews. Digital Sportspage is pretty >religious. You should see my NCAA Gamebreaker 98 review. I'm already putting >on layers of flame-proof clothing :) I checked out your site's NHL98 review, as that was a game that was vastly over-hyped and over-rated in most reviews. Yours is good, it does convey the problems in the game. I'll keep an eye on your site, those honest reviews are hard to find sometimes. Joe

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 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).

<SNIP> If you are interested in finding out what is really happening with CART and not just being another "me too" flamer, then email me. I'm on the CART beta testing team and we have the second patch CD right now. Patched CART is a whole nother sim, BTW. Trev

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 14:26:21 GMT About: Another suspect CPR Review - Operation 3DFX [e-mailed and posted, please reply to rec.autos.simulators if possible] I might be jumping in a few days late here, but anyway: the word 'incompetent' is the best I've found so far for describing the reviews and reviewers, who practically don't know what the hell they're writing about. Unfortunately, the reviews on op3dfx.com are among the worst I've seen yet (avault.com comes up close second), although their news section is excellent. Reviews of NHL '98, NBA Live '98 and NHL Powerplay '98 clearly demonstrate that, with NHL '98's review winning by a long shot (in patheticness). They talk so much about 'realism', yet, I as a reader, get the feeling they don't have a clue what goes on in the _real_ game. But then again, I've usually already played the games they're reviewing, so I know whether it's BS or not - it would be so much harder, if I hadn't played them upfront. The point is: don't believe. Read newsgroups. Then spend money. :]