-- Here's the message I sent Avault, concerning Craig Miller's GPL review
I urge you to do the same (doesn't have to be so long, though!
Go to http://www.avault.com/letters/
This review is almost slanderous!
(The review can be found at: http://avault.com/reviews/gpl.asp
--
Re: Craig Miller's Grand Prix Legends Review
2 1/2 stars?? This is a travesty of justice!! I found Craig Miller's review
of Sierra's Grand Prix Legends (GPL) to be an extremely unfair review of the
product. It was evident that the reviewer wrote his review with the "arcade"
game idea in his head, when he should have been reviewing GPL for what it
is - a racing simulation. There are many factual errors, ommisions, and
comments made which portray GPL to be of a different calibre of game than
the one I own! Please read the following examples and comments as I prove my
point:-
- "The graphics are good as far as these types of games go, but
they give no sense of awe or wonder. "
Excuse me? Grand Prix Legends' graphics are great (granted, the off-track
objects are "flat".. but it doesn't matter, as they are only eye-candy, and
look good from a distance). All tracks and cars are modelled with a
painstaking eye for realism and detail. What's more, they look beautful! How
the reviewer's above statement can be made completely baffles me. Was he
reviewing the same game?
- "The musical score is spartan at best. I don't really think that it
matters much in this type of game, however. I can say that the music
does nothing to set the mood of the game nor does it give me any
sense of enjoyment just for music's sake. I quickly turned it off."
Hmmm.. did Craig even review the game, or did he just read a few other
reviews,etc and make up the rest. There is NO music of any kind in the game
(and therefore definitely no option to turn in OFF!)
- "I can still picture most people returning Grand Prix Legends a
few days after they buy it."
That's a really great comment for a reviewer to make. It would be redundant
anyhow, as people who read Craig's review most likely WON'T buy the product
in the first place (2 1/2 stars.. unfavourable comments, etc)- so unless
they are a Racing Sim ***, most people will read the review and pass it
by. A reviewer should not pass judgement for OTHERS, but merely give an
unbiased PERSONAL opinion of the product. The above statement just killed
GPL for anyone that was even entertaining the idea of perhaps buying GPL.
However, at the bottom of the second page, he writes: "Simulation fanatics
will probably love this game -- I just don't think that anyone else with a
lower level of enthusiasm will get much out of it." This again renders the
"returning it to the store" statement redundant. This sentence was all that
was needed, but again he is making assumptions for the reader. A better
sentence would have been "... love this game -- those with a lower level of
enthusiasm may not get as much enjoyment of it".
Craig complains of a lack of setup help for the cars. Well, there was an
ENTIRE BOOK provided with GPL for setups alone, and some say it is the best
one ever written for a computer racing game. And he complains that the cars
are impossible to drive. Well, this IS A SIMULATION... NOT an arcade game,
and should thus be reviewed as one. Can you really expect to hop into a 1967
Grand Prix car, and not spin on your first lap out?? I guarantee you that
you would spin MANY times, and it would take some time to 1) learn the car's
handling, and 2) learn the tracks, 3) learn racing techniques, and 4) be
comfortable with other racers on the track. In this respect, GPL does a
fantastic job of SIMULATING the experience. Sure, it IS frustrating, but I
would invite Craig to participate in an online race or visit a Fast-laps
page to see how well people are able to drive these cars.
Once you get used to the cars, they can really be pushed to the limit. Craig
does acknowledge this in the "Intelligence & Difficulty" section, however,
the "Review Criteria" states that this section is "more a measure for
advanced, *** gamers who like a significant challenge." GPL is
challenging, but that's what's good about it. This is NOT an arcade game
(much as it appears Craig wants it to be), and so it's purpose is not for
you to be able to win your first Grand Prix a week after you buy the
product. Another major point that should be noted is that the Artificial
Intelligence model is VERY advanced. The computer drivers' times adapt as
you get faster and more experienced. This way, there is always a constant
challenge. Therefore, the 2 1/2 stars awarded in this area are most
inappropriate. I would agree that part-points could be lost for being a
little too challenging for most people, but again, the point of GPL is to
provide a simulation of the Grand Prix experience, and it does just this so
this rating should be much higher.
Craig complains about framerate problems on his system. He should have tried
lowering the resolution setting. I can almost guarantee you that at 800 x ..
resolution (or even (969 x..), he would have easily achieved the maximum
possible resolution of 36fps. I personally use 640 x .. res for most of my
races as this gives me 36fps on my system (lower spec than the reviewer's),
and GPL still looks great. One reason the higher resolutions are offered is
so that in a year's time when the latest chips and graphics cards come out,
GPL will be able to take advantage of them. Obviously, 1024 x .. resolution
IS a strain on today's systems, so just reduce the resolution, and problem
solved! (Remember Microprose's GP2? .. A year after it was released, the
enjoyment level increased as people were able to run it with better
framerates, etc.)
Craig states "The fact that the screen is scrunched up is very annoying".
It's not "scrunched up". It was designed this way.. you may recognise it
from the movie theatre - it's called "letterbox" format. (The movie "Grand
Prix" was an inspiration, I believe), The top and bottom areas of the
screen, if filled with graphics, would be sky! Everything would be enlarged,
and take up more processor requirements, and is not really needed anyhow.
Papyrus essentially did the same thing in Nascar2, only the "black areas"
were filled at the top of the screen with the inside roof of the car, and
the bottom, with a large black dashboard. Nobody seemed to complain then! As
there is no roof is a GP car, it would have been unbalanced in my opinion to
have just a large dashboard at the bottom in GPL.
One final point, and this is a MAJOR one. Grand Prix Legends was designed
with the "multi-player" experience in mind. There is NO MENTION of GPL's
multiplayer capabilities whatsoever. Today's computer *** market has
found that the Online-*** experience is a major selling point in the
consumer's mind. Grand Prix Legends offers phenomenal online racing - some
say the racing experience is better than that of NROS. As many as 19 people
can log into a "host" server (so 20 players max), and have a good session of
online racing. (That is the maximum possible, best results with a
cable-modem host are around 12-15 players). Some GPL owners use GPL almost
exclusively for online play. (I still haven't run a full-length race on my
own!). This was a MAJOR oversight to "forget" to mention this aspect of GPL.
Whilst Craig Miller does admittedly make some very good observations and
comments, overall his review of GPL is unacceptable. Avault's credibility is
in jeopardy if reviews like this are continued to be published. I think my
main problem with the review is that is was reviewed with the "arcade" game
mindset, when the reviewer acknowledges that it is a sim. Therefore, it
should be reviewed as a sim, and should not whine about "arcade" features
that are not presented. A reviewer should have the decency to give the
product more than what appears to be a quick test before writing an article,
and should definitely read (quickly browse at the least!) through the
accompanying manuals - not just a few select pages, as it appears that Craig
did. (There was a book called "Four Wheel Drift" included in the box that
has a track-by-track guide, and discussion on how to setup the cars for the
various tracks.)
It is my opinion that Avault should either
1) Have the reviewer re-write the review to correct the inaccuracies,
omissions, and "arcade" bias that it so evidently includes in the current
draft WITH an apology to Papyrus and to Avault's visitors,
2) Replace the review with one written by an experienced Sim-racer who knows
how to write a proper review
3) Using #2, give a "sim-racer's opinion" comparison review (along with
suggestion #1), or
4) Remove the review from the site (no article would be better than one
which gives a false impression of a product)
Sincerely,
Dan Bryan
Letters protesting Avault's Grand Prix Legends review
doktorB shared a letter to The Adrenaline Vault criticising Craig Miller's negative GPL review, and others said they wrote in too. Debate followed over whether a review is simply personal opinion or should be competent and fair to the genre's audience, with John Wallace arguing for professional standards and Paul Jones objecting to attempts to pressure the reviewer. Posters noted Avault quietly changed a passage about music that had come from another review.
Automated summary.
Well put Dan! Captured my thoughts perfectly.
Jon Thompson
The Sandtrap - http://members.xoom.com/sandtrap
Remove junkblok from email address when sending email.
Great e-mail Dan! I am sending an e-mail to Avault as well.
The Adrenaline Vault(Avault) lost all credibilty with me last year when they
reviewed CART Precision Racing. They gave it 4 1/2 out of 5 stars! I guess
that means it is a far superior game to GPL! Two full stars worth! I'm not
trying to start another CPR debate, but this comparison is just more proof
of Avault's inability to give un-biased, consistent reviews. I know all
reviewers are different, and everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but
there has got to be a better way of reviewing games. I like at least the
idea of having a general gamers review, and then a genre fans review. How do
all those flight sims get such good reviews with their encyclopedia manuals
and steep hardware requirements and learning curve? What about those
real-time strategy games? I don't like them myself so I would probably not
be a good reviewer for the hard corps, but I hope I could at least tell if a
game is of good quality or not. Two and 1/2 stars is like failing, below
average, to be avoided; and GPL is just NOT such a game. It seems unfair.
Anyway here are some of the gems from the Avault CPR review:
"A highly refined masterpiece that sets a new standard for realism in racing
simulations. "
"With the exception of the unbalanced car speeds and slightly demanding
hardware requirements, this is a five star title."
"The perfectly modeled physics are truly something to experience. "
".....the opposition in Precision Racing does perform with a high degree of
proficiency and aptitude. "
And the real kicker:
"Rookie Microsoft makes an illustrious entrance into a competitive genre
with Precision Racing, and is already poised to climb the pedestal and grasp
the trophy from the firm grip of veteran leader Papyrus. "
Too bad Avault did not use some of the above quotes for GPL, it is so much
more deserving of them!
Don Chapman
[email hidden]
doktorB wrote in message <[email hidden]>...
the
>product. It was evident that the reviewer wrote his review with the "arcade"
>game idea in his head, when he should have been reviewing GPL for what it
>is - a racing simulation. There are many factual errors, ommisions, and
>comments made which portray GPL to be of a different calibre of game than
>the one I own! Please read the following examples and comments as I prove my
How
1967
>Grand Prix car, and not spin on your first lap out?? I guarantee you that
>you would spin MANY times, and it would take some time to 1) learn the car's
Craig
tried
>lowering the resolution setting. I can almost guarantee you that at 800 x ..
enlarged,
>and take up more processor requirements, and is not really needed anyhow.
>Papyrus essentially did the same thing in Nascar2, only the "black areas"
>were filled at the top of the screen with the inside roof of the car, and
>the bottom, with a large black dashboard. Nobody seemed to complain then! As
>there is no roof is a GP car, it would have been unbalanced in my opinion to
of
>online racing. (That is the maximum possible, best results with a
>cable-modem host are around 12-15 players). Some GPL owners use GPL almost
>exclusively for online play. (I still haven't run a full-length race on my
>own!). This was a MAJOR oversight to "forget" to mention this aspect of GPL.
>Whilst Craig Miller does admittedly make some very good observations and
>comments, overall his review of GPL is unacceptable. Avault's credibility is
>in jeopardy if reviews like this are continued to be published. I think my
>main problem with the review is that is was reviewed with the "arcade" game
>mindset, when the reviewer acknowledges that it is a sim. Therefore, it
>should be reviewed as a sim, and should not whine about "arcade" features
>that are not presented. A reviewer should have the decency to give the
>product more than what appears
...
read more »
Quoted text (11 lines)
>-- Here's the message I sent Avault, concerning Craig Miller's GPL review >I urge you to do the same (doesn't have to be so long, though! >Go to http://www.avault.com/letters/ to complain. >This review is almost slanderous! >(The review can be found at: http://avault.com/reviews/gpl.asp ) >-- >Re: Craig Miller's Grand Prix Legends Review >2 1/2 stars?? This is a travesty of justice!! I found Craig Miller's review >of Sierra's Grand Prix Legends (GPL) to be an extremely unfair review ofQuoted text (9 lines)
>point:- >- "The graphics are good as far as these types of games go, but >they give no sense of awe or wonder. " >Excuse me? Grand Prix Legends' graphics are great (granted, the off-track >objects are "flat".. but it doesn't matter, as they are only eye-candy, and >look good from a distance). All tracks and cars are modelled with a >painstaking eye for realism and detail. What's more, they look beautful!Quoted text (35 lines)
>the reviewer's above statement can be made completely baffles me. Was he >reviewing the same game? >- "The musical score is spartan at best. I don't really think that it >matters much in this type of game, however. I can say that the music >does nothing to set the mood of the game nor does it give me any >sense of enjoyment just for music's sake. I quickly turned it off." >Hmmm.. did Craig even review the game, or did he just read a few other >reviews,etc and make up the rest. There is NO music of any kind in the game >(and therefore definitely no option to turn in OFF!) >- "I can still picture most people returning Grand Prix Legends a >few days after they buy it." >That's a really great comment for a reviewer to make. It would be redundant >anyhow, as people who read Craig's review most likely WON'T buy the product >in the first place (2 1/2 stars.. unfavourable comments, etc)- so unless >they are a Racing Sim addict, most people will read the review and pass it >by. A reviewer should not pass judgement for OTHERS, but merely give an >unbiased PERSONAL opinion of the product. The above statement just killed >GPL for anyone that was even entertaining the idea of perhaps buying GPL. >However, at the bottom of the second page, he writes: "Simulation fanatics >will probably love this game -- I just don't think that anyone else with a >lower level of enthusiasm will get much out of it." This again renders the >"returning it to the store" statement redundant. This sentence was all that >was needed, but again he is making assumptions for the reader. A better >sentence would have been "... love this game -- those with a lower level of >enthusiasm may not get as much enjoyment of it". >Craig complains of a lack of setup help for the cars. Well, there was an >ENTIRE BOOK provided with GPL for setups alone, and some say it is the best >one ever written for a computer racing game. And he complains that the cars >are impossible to drive. Well, this IS A SIMULATION... NOT an arcade game, >and should thus be reviewed as one. Can you really expect to hop into aQuoted text (7 lines)
>handling, and 2) learn the tracks, 3) learn racing techniques, and 4) be >comfortable with other racers on the track. In this respect, GPL does a >fantastic job of SIMULATING the experience. Sure, it IS frustrating, but I >would invite Craig to participate in an online race or visit a Fast-laps >page to see how well people are able to drive these cars. >Once you get used to the cars, they can really be pushed to the limit.Quoted text (16 lines)
>does acknowledge this in the "Intelligence & Difficulty" section, however, >the "Review Criteria" states that this section is "more a measure for >advanced, hardcore gamers who like a significant challenge." GPL is >challenging, but that's what's good about it. This is NOT an arcade game >(much as it appears Craig wants it to be), and so it's purpose is not for >you to be able to win your first Grand Prix a week after you buy the >product. Another major point that should be noted is that the Artificial >Intelligence model is VERY advanced. The computer drivers' times adapt as >you get faster and more experienced. This way, there is always a constant >challenge. Therefore, the 2 1/2 stars awarded in this area are most >inappropriate. I would agree that part-points could be lost for being a >little too challenging for most people, but again, the point of GPL is to >provide a simulation of the Grand Prix experience, and it does just this so >this rating should be much higher. >Craig complains about framerate problems on his system. He should haveQuoted text (16 lines)
>resolution (or even (969 x..), he would have easily achieved the maximum >possible resolution of 36fps. I personally use 640 x .. res for most of my >races as this gives me 36fps on my system (lower spec than the reviewer's), >and GPL still looks great. One reason the higher resolutions are offered is >so that in a year's time when the latest chips and graphics cards come out, >GPL will be able to take advantage of them. Obviously, 1024 x .. resolution >IS a strain on today's systems, so just reduce the resolution, and problem >solved! (Remember Microprose's GP2? .. A year after it was released, the >enjoyment level increased as people were able to run it with better >framerates, etc.) >Craig states "The fact that the screen is scrunched up is very annoying". >It's not "scrunched up". It was designed this way.. you may recognise it >from the movie theatre - it's called "letterbox" format. (The movie "Grand >Prix" was an inspiration, I believe), The top and bottom areas of the >screen, if filled with graphics, would be sky! Everything would beQuoted text (9 lines)
>have just a large dashboard at the bottom in GPL. >One final point, and this is a MAJOR one. Grand Prix Legends was designed >with the "multi-player" experience in mind. There is NO MENTION of GPL's >multiplayer capabilities whatsoever. Today's computer gaming market has >found that the Online-gaming experience is a major selling point in the >consumer's mind. Grand Prix Legends offers phenomenal online racing - some >say the racing experience is better than that of NROS. As many as 19 people >can log into a "host" server (so 20 players max), and have a good sessionHi Dan,
> How
> the reviewer's above statement can be made completely baffles me. Was he
> reviewing the same game?
Whether you agree with Craig or not, he's entitled to his opinion.However, you
bring up an interesting point...Did he have the same gameas we? After reading
the review, I began to wonder if "Four Wheel
Drift" had been shipped to him (there was no mention of the sim being
purchased). Perhaps GPL traded a few hands among A-Vault's many
net'izens, and one of them forgot to repackage the guide...?
Imagine getting a copy of GPL with only the regular manual. <shudder>
We may have been reading a different review...The one I read stated that"There
is no music in the game so I didn't rate this section." Ah, the speed
of e-mail! ;)
Cheers!
Marc
--
Marc J. Nelson
Sim Racing Online - http://www.simracing.com/
* Switch confused.net with concentric.net to reply...Confused-yet? *
> -- Here's the message I sent Avault, concerning Craig Miller's GPL review
> I urge you to do the same (doesn't have to be so long, though!
> Go to http://www.avault.com/letters/
> This review is almost slanderous!
> (The review can be found at: http://avault.com/reviews/gpl.asp
> --
sorry. i didn't have that much patience. ....
---------------------
i've never really put much weight with reviews, as i'm a hands on-then
make decision person.
however, the review of Grand Prix Legends by your Chris Miller is
absolutely one of the most laughable things i've read up to this point in
the eight years i've been on the net.
tell this 35-year-old-console-jockey to get a clue, maybe a steering setup
instead of a joystick for the game (Fav being NASCAR 2... yeah...
whatever..), and maybe some actual experience with the game. F.Y.I. the
game _doesn't even have_ music.
Chris Miller is a joke. and you've lost a patron as long as this dork is
on your staff. tell wonderboy that Need For Speed 'N' is more his speed
of ***. something arcadish, and completely devoid of intelligence
requirements.
---------------
-jch
Hi,
The only reviews I read are the ones posted here on r.a.s. At least
I know there is a much higher chance it was written by a racing sim
fanatics here like me with the same general mind set, unlike all of those
other "gamers"! :)
Later,
John
> Whether you agree with Craig or not, he's entitled to his opinion.
Thank you Marc - at least someone has the sense to point that out.
Paul
Great letter!
I've send an Email too. We'll MAKE them correct this!
// Johan
Same here. I didn't know if it was quoted wrong or if AVault changed
the review.
I trust opinions in the respective *** groups more than web page
reviews, be it flight sims, driving sims or action games.
You have to sift through the SUX and RULEZ type trash to get to it,
but there's enough there that you'll get a better balance of opinion.
I don't think his reaction to GPL was surprising at all. I can't
imagine anyone not REALLY into racing sims investing the time to get
good at it. In his summation, that is basically the point he conveyed
to me.
I'd further add that anyone without an interest in cars and the
physics modelled will quite possibly hate GPL.
Remember it happening with SODA?
I have friends that will sit and watch the GPL suspension cam and be
amazed at what they see, but I also have a couple of friends that
would dismiss it with "THIS BLOWS!" after 2 laps on the easiest track.
I don't even force it on them, I just fire up Quake2 for a little
deathmatch. That's just the way opinion is.
I bought GPL and think it's awesome, but I know already that I'll
never be good at it. I just don't have the time, and I actually prefer
racing sims to more arcade style stuff.
MotoRacer, MXMadness and the original Need For Speed basically cover
my arcade releases, and I have everything Papyrus has been involved
with from the original EA Indy 500.
I divide my computer time between racing sims, flight sims and action
games, and as much as I hate to admit it here, GPL has put aside for
Shogo:MAD. Its fun (for me), and I think it's getting lost here that
fun is what it's all about.
Given the storm of releases that will be coming out for the holiday
season, I'll be honest and say I don't even know when I'll get back
into GPL.
I'm really looking forward to NASCAR using the GPL engine (with the
lingering fear that it's gonna be a hardware hog beyond anything
that's come before), since the cars are more accessible by nature.
Already knowing the tracks will make the transition smoother, too.
Sorry to ramble, but Mark (as always) presents some good points.
--
http://www.users.fast.net/~fusion1 [address restored]
http://www.users.fast.net/~fusion1
(dirt bikes, rat bikes, rental car abuse...)
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:02:19 +0000, Paul Jones
>> Whether you agree with Craig or not, he's entitled to his opinion.
>Thank you Marc - at least someone has the sense to point that out.
>Paul
But he got his facts wrong?
> Whether you agree with Craig or not, he's entitled to his opinion.
Not when he writes it as a review he's not - a review is not simply a
personal opinion.
Cheers!
John
>Given the storm of releases that will be coming out for the holiday
>season, I'll be honest and say I don't even know when I'll get back
>into GPL.
Sorry to reply to my own post. There was one point here I meant to add
involving the time involved in learning GPL, but it slipped my mind.
I only played the demo briefly before buying the game. I don't
download a lot of demos.
Most of the guys here probably hotlapped the 2 track demos for over a
month before the full release came out.
I bet this made the transition into the full game much easier.
You've already learned the handling, it was more a matter of learning
the new tracks. I think that knocked a bigger hunk out of the learning
curve than for people playing it "cold".
Tim
Quoted text (10 lines)
>Path: >> Whether you agree with Craig or not, he's entitled to his opinion. >Not when he writes it as a review he's not - a review is not simply a >personal opinion. >Cheers! >John>>We may have been reading a different review...The one I read stated that"There
>>is no music in the game so I didn't rate this section." Ah, the speed
>>of e-mail! ;)
>Same here. I didn't know if it was quoted wrong or if AVault changed
>the review.
This is an icing on the cake!!! :-) They DID change it!!!!! Greg (or
someone) realised the mistake!
This is what it used to say:
"The musical score is spartan at best. I don't really think that it
matters much in this type of game, however. I can say that the music
does nothing to set the mood of the game nor does it give me any
sense of enjoyment just for music's sake. I quickly turned it off."
And this is what is says now:
There is no music in the game so I didn't rate this section. Heck, the game
is supposed to be set in the sixties -- they missed their chance to get some
really good music in the game to provide a mood. It obviously would have
been inappropriate while racing, however.
... I think this tops it all ...
Hena
Quoted text (13 lines)
> >Path: > >> Whether you agree with Craig or not, he's entitled to his opinion. > >Not when he writes it as a review he's not - a review is not simply a > >personal opinion. > >Cheers! > >John > I'm afraid a review is just that- an account of a personal experience of using > a product.Quoted text (9 lines)
>> I'm afraid a review is just that- an account of a personal experience of > using >> a product. >Yepp, but in this case it's like a five year old reviewing a >microscope... >l8er >ronny>> Whether you agree with Craig or not, he's entitled to his opinion.
>Not when he writes it as a review he's not - a review is not simply a
>personal opinion.
Yes it is. It's the opinion of the reviewer. Why is your opinion on the game
more right than his? Do you just want press releases in magazines and on
websites or perhaps we can get the publishers to review their own titles?
Sierra say "GPL is excellent 100%"
Microsoft say "CPR is excellent 100%"
21st century media say "Klondike Moon is excellent 100%"
M
Yeah right. you've just described a post on usenet - I expect
reviewers to show a lot more professionalism than that.
Like I said, I would never take on the job of reviewing a flight sim
since although I like arsing around in them and shooting at things
they are WAY more complex than my limited exposure to them could do
justice to. My reviewing one would be unfair on fans of the genre who
may miss out and on the company who had invested a lot of time and
money in making the product. IMO Final Fantasy VII is one of the worst
and most boring games I've ever seen - that's my opinion, it is NOT a
review or a statement of fact.
It's a lazy, incompetent and sloppy attitude to reviewing. If it's not
accesible for arcade racers then fine, say so, but a review needs to
also show the other side of the coin. To fail to do so is to not do
their job properly.
Cheers!
John
Quoted text (10 lines)
>Path: >>I'm afraid a review is just that- an account of a personal experience of using >>a product. >Yeah right. you've just described a post on usenet - I expect >reviewers to show a lot more professionalism than that.>>Not when he writes it as a review he's not - a review is not simply a
>>personal opinion.
>Yes it is. It's the opinion of the reviewer.
A review is the way the magazine recommends the game to it's audience,
it's not an opinion (or if it is then it should be a finely tuned and
highly developed variant - i.e., done by someone who knows whereof he
speaks). As I mentioned before, my saying "Total Air War is boring" or
"FF7 is rubbish" is NOT a review. It is undoubtedly my opinion and I
will defend it, but it is unfair on consumers and unfair on the
company making the game. I wouldn't state that as a review and it's
worrying that any site seeking credibility would do so.
Anyone who reviews games by giving them to any old Tom,*** or Harry
and asking them to write their opinion deserves all the complaints
they get.
Are you kidding? Why is Stephen Hawking's opinion on the Grand Unified
Theory more right than mine? Because I know more about auto-sims than
the reviewer and Stephen Hawking knows more about GUT than I do.
That's why I take a synopsis of opinions here on r.a.s. rather than
read the nonsense on *** sites - a lot of trolling and arguing
black is white goes on here, but there's a lot of experience and good
opinion as well. Two things noticably lacking from Avault's "opinion".
Usenet opinion is always stated in black and white hyperbole - we both
know this is not the alternative.
Cheers!
John
What's the matter? Can't you stand someone who doesn't hold the same
opinions as you? I really like GPL but I can understand that some people
might not like it. So you going to MAKE them correct it, are you? That
attitude really stinks for 2 reasons:
1) The guy has a right to say what he feels.
2) The arrogance where by you beleive that your opinion (yes, opinion)
is more valid than anyone elses.
Get off your f***** high horse for one second and see that in the world
out there are lots of different people with different views and that
everyone of them is just as valid as yours.
Paul
> Great letter!
> I've send an Email too. We'll MAKE them correct this!
> // Johan
>Yes it is. It's the opinion of the reviewer. Why is your opinion on the game
>more right than his? Do you just want press releases in magazines and on
>websites or perhaps we can get the publishers to review their own titles?
No it isn't :-) His job is to inform the buying public about the game,
not to express his opinion. He has the responsebility toward the
reader, the manufacturer, and his boss. All have to be treated fair.
It is obvious that Carl doesn't like the game. That's ok, but his
arguments don't hold water. When he comes up with arguments like that
the marshall don't run, duck or splat, he shows that he doesn't know
what the purpose of the game is, and for a reviewer. that's bad.
A professional reviewer must have the ability to review a game for
what it is, and Carl for sure doesn't have this ability.
Remco
Quoted text (11 lines)
>>Given the storm of releases that will be coming out for the holiday >>season, I'll be honest and say I don't even know when I'll get back >>into GPL. >Sorry to reply to my own post. There was one point here I meant to add >involving the time involved in learning GPL, but it slipped my mind. >I only played the demo briefly before buying the game. I don't >download a lot of demos. >Most of the guys here probably hotlapped the 2 track demos for over a >month before the full release came out.Quoted text (17 lines)
>>Yes it is. It's the opinion of the reviewer. Why is your opinion on the game >>more right than his? Do you just want press releases in magazines and on >>websites or perhaps we can get the publishers to review their own titles? >No it isn't :-) His job is to inform the buying public about the game, >not to express his opinion. He has the responsebility toward the >reader, the manufacturer, and his boss. All have to be treated fair. >It is obvious that Carl doesn't like the game. That's ok, but his >arguments don't hold water. When he comes up with arguments like that >the marshall don't run, duck or splat, he shows that he doesn't know >what the purpose of the game is, and for a reviewer. that's bad. >A professional reviewer must have the ability to review a game for >what it is, and Carl for sure doesn't have this ability. >RemcoQuoted text (27 lines)
> >>Not when he writes it as a review he's not - a review is not simply a > >>personal opinion. > >Yes it is. It's the opinion of the reviewer. > A review is the way the magazine recommends the game to it's audience, > it's not an opinion (or if it is then it should be a finely tuned and > highly developed variant - i.e., done by someone who knows whereof he > speaks). As I mentioned before, my saying "Total Air War is boring" or > "FF7 is rubbish" is NOT a review. It is undoubtedly my opinion and I > will defend it, but it is unfair on consumers and unfair on the > company making the game. I wouldn't state that as a review and it's > worrying that any site seeking credibility would do so. > Anyone who reviews games by giving them to any old Tom,*** or Harry > and asking them to write their opinion deserves all the complaints > they get. > >Why is your opinion on the game more right than his? > Are you kidding? Why is Stephen Hawking's opinion on the Grand Unified > Theory more right than mine? Because I know more about auto-sims than > the reviewer and Stephen Hawking knows more about GUT than I do. > That's why I take a synopsis of opinions here on r.a.s. rather than > read the nonsense on *** sites - a lot of trolling and arguing > black is white goes on here, but there's a lot of experience and good > opinion as well. Two things noticably lacking from Avault's "opinion".Hi John,
You make a valid point, and I had commented on the review as though
it were a Usenet post. Avault does indeed have a responsibility to
present its views (and reviews) in a responsible manner, since
they're looked upon as "the experts" in *** (so to speak).
It would be unprofessional of me to make any comments, negative or
positive, concerning Avault's column, however, I can take a stand
on their review policy. Avault should only allow those who are
qualified for a specific genre to review same. In other words,
they shouldn't allow one who's main gig is Rainbow-6 to review
Viper or NFS-III, nor should they allow sim racers to review the
latest Quake level.
Of course, there are always exceptions, as some who run the tracks
also run the halls of the shoot-em-ups. The point is that the
review should be kept to those who know know what's up in their
particular field of interest, and if they don't know, then to keep
their respective views to themselves.
Cheers!
Marc
--
Marc J. Nelson
Sim Racing Online - http://www.simracing.com/
* Switch confused.net with concentric.net to reply...Confused-yet? *
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > Whether you agree with Craig or not, he's entitled to his opinion. > Not when he writes it as a review he's not - a review is not simply a > personal opinion. > Cheers! > JohnI have mixed feelings about this, Marc.
I think the bottom line is that a reviewer should be COMPETENT enough to
write a good review. They should take the time to test the game (ie: not
just 5 minutes), should do some research (newsgroups, other reviews, forums,
etc), proof-read their work (get someone else to proof-read it as well <---
must!) , and maybe even go as far as to show their review (draft copy) to
someone else who has tested/played the game), to see if they can make any
corrections, observations, or insights into the product that the reviewer
might not have thought about.
I would have no problem with someone that likes Micro-Machines(!!) to review
GPL. Sure, they might find it is not their "cup-of-tea", but they SHOULD be
able to point out what is good about the product, and if they had done their
research, would be able to say what new features the product offered and
where the game might shine and where it might need some work.
After all, if someone who is still playing "Pole Position" is "introduced"
to GPL, they might fall in love with the product, or they might not, and
have some concerns about the game's difficulty for example. They should
still be able to see the merits of the product, but realize that it is not
for them. I don't play flight simulators, but would probably be blown away
by the first one I looked at (providing it was half-decent), and thus would
perhaps give an overly-generous score to the product because I didn't
realize that it might have been lacking features that others had. But I
wouldn't give it two-and-a-half stars because it was "too hard" or because I
was expected to "read the manual" in order to get the plane off the ground.
However, as you point out, a review by a TRUE sim-racing lover would give a
more accurate portrayal of the product to the Sim-racing crowd. They would
know exactly how it compared to similar products, and would thus be
qualified to make KNOWLEDGEABLE comments, instead of something they believed
because they were either misinformed or were simply making a mistaken
assumption. However, they would probably not take into full consideration
the view of an "arcade" racing crowd, as their likes are on different ends
of the spectrum.
I suggested in my email to the AVAULT that they consider publishing a
comparison review by a true sim-racer alongside (an edited) Craig Miller's
review.
Bottom line: You can't please everyone all of the time. A well-written
review should please most of the people, however. Craig Miller's review was
obviously NOT well-written, and so doesn't please ANYONE (who's going to buy
GPL after reading that it's worthy of only 2 1/2 stars?)
So I'm not sure what the best solution is.. the only thing I can suggest is
that reviews should only be published by people that 1) know what they are
talking about 2) do some background research 3) look at both sides of the
coin 4) are able to provide an unbiased account 5) follow the guidelines
that are set out by the publisher.
doktorB
http://webhome.idirect.com/~drbryan
Hi Dan,
John and I have always shared our thoughts when reviewing a title. Not
only does it follow the advice you indicate, but also allows the unbiased
reader to point out possible snags in structure, etc., long before placing
on the 'net.
SRN's approach will be evident in our upcoming review section on SRO,
and uses a format similar to that used in Car & Driver during the '60's.
Weeeeeeeee're Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!
Cheers!
Marc
> proof-read their work (get someone else to proof-read it as well <---
> must!) , and maybe even go as far as to show their review (draft copy) to
> someone else who has tested/played the game), to see if they can make any
> corrections, observations, or insights into the product that the reviewer
> might not have thought about.
--
Marc J. Nelson
Sim Racing Online - http://www.simracing.com/
* Switch confused.net with concentric.net to reply...Confused-yet? *
I thought his review was pretty fair and evenhanded and follows closely with
the posts you see on this newsgroup. He mentioned that it is a very
difficult game to master and would have been improved with "easier" or
"arcade" settings. That follows closely with postings I have read here. He
said that it would appeal to the hard core simmer. That follows with what
you see in this group. Don't minimize that a huge percentage of the people
in this group are hard core simmers. They don't mind....heck they even
enjoy....devoting hours to learn the feel of a car. They enjoy
experimenting with setups and developing the best setups on their own. That
is in contrast to the majority of people who want to get out there and race.
There is no doubt, from what I read, that this game has a steep learning
curve. There is also no doubt that Papy could have handled this curve
better. I have seen several suggestions, from letting people race the
trainers to adding steering assistance/braking assistance, etc, to being
able to set the AI's speed. In my opinion, Papy made a huge miscalculation
not doing this. Sure the hard core simmer will work through this hurdle but
the average racing fan will not. This narrows the market for the product
and lowers sales. Less sales mean less income for development of future
products and addons. Papy's "let the casual racer be damned" attitude may
send this fine simulation straight to the bargain shelves. A pity really.
Sure it will continue to be hallowed by the hard core simmers but,
unfortunately, there are not enough of 'em out there to support the huge
software development costs a product like this has. Papy needs to appeal to
the whole racing set (like they did with the Nascar series) in order to stay
in business.
>-- Here's the message I sent Avault, concerning Craig Miller's GPL review
>I urge you to do the same (doesn't have to be so long, though!
>Go to http://www.avault.com/letters/ to complain.
>This review is almost slanderous!
>(The review can be found at: http://avault.com/reviews/gpl.asp )
A reviewer's job is to *review* the game not just pass an opinion. The www
has encouraged every Tom,*** and Harry to believe they can review
software, and with so many amateur sites thinly disguised by a few good
graphics it'll only get worse.
Reviewing, like any other kind of "professional" writing, is a skill. Some
sites realise this, some sites don't. Many don't even care as long as they
get hits. Of course you usually only get what you pay for, and web
reviewers seem to work for love, free software, or "fame". None of these
have anything to do with ability... though I'm not saying there aren't any
capable people working under these conditions.
John Wallace said he wouldn't put himself forward to review flight sims
because they don't interest him at all. But that doesn't necessarily mean
he wouldn't do a good job of reviewing them if he *had* to do so. It's as
much to do with attitude and approach as personal experience.
Andrew McP... who has a very limited set of *** site favourites in his
browser.
>Imagine getting a copy of GPL with only the regular manual. <shudder>
It would be like buying a Microsoft product....
LOL!
> >Imagine getting a copy of GPL with only the regular manual. <shudder>
> It would be like buying a Microsoft product....
--
Marc J. Nelson
Sim Racing Online - http://www.simracing.com/
* Switch confused.net with concentric.net to reply...Confused-yet? *
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 16:04:07 +0000, Paul Jones
>Get off your f***** high horse for one second and see that in the world
>out there are lots of different people with different views and that
>everyone of them is just as valid as yours.
You know of course that the above is total nonsense. Yes everyone has
their right to their opinion, but that's as far as it goes. Not all of
them can be valid.
Cheers!
John
He may receive it in the same way (although "average" is just that -
not the same as anyone but an average of the population), but it
doesn't mean he will be able to write well about it, convey his/her
impressions well or equate it reasonably with other products or genre.
How often have we read and book and thought how closely it touched us
or mirrored our own feelings or emotions - however closely it was, we
couldn't have written that book.
Professionalism isn't in the way the message is received it's in the
way it is conveyed to others. *** sites owe that level of
professionalism to those whose products they review.
What a horrible thought. What I want is well thought out professional
reviewing. If the product is "NFS3" it should be reviewed by a fan of
that genre, who can equate it to the Test Drive series, Viper Racing
etc. If the product is a flight sim it should be written by someone
who knows flight sims - not a total propeller head but someone who can
not only convey how it is to fans of that genre but describe how it
reaches out to newcomers and how accesible it is.
That requires quite talented reviewers and also people who are
prepared to spend some time with the product, something which
reviewing site should be required to do anyway. Avault's review was
sloppy, badly targetted and inconsistent.
Cheers!
John
Jay, I'm arguing the point because I expect better from Avault. I'm
unlikely to argue the point on your review above because quite frankly
it is infinitely more wordy and eloquent than I ever expected from
you.
The day I lose a battle of wits with you will be the day the final
nail goes in and I'm pushing up the daisies. Even then it would be a
contest between equals...
Love and kisses,
John
Agreed. They have a responsibility to those whose whose labour of love
they are judge and jury on, to the owner of the site whose future
level of custom they are influencing, and finally to themselves
(although maybe it's utopian to think that people should still care
about the quality of work they turn in).
Cheers!
John
On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 1:24 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>John Wallace said he wouldn't put himself forward to review flight sims
>because they don't interest him at all. But that doesn't necessarily mean
>he wouldn't do a good job of reviewing them if he *had* to do so. It's as
>much to do with attitude and approach as personal experience.
It's more that because I find flight sims tedious I am unlikely to
pick up on the aspects of a particular flight sim that will enthrall
the enthusiasts (zzz...). For example if the flaps are usually only
(zzzz....) adjustable in increments of 5, perhaps it is a major bonus
that they (zzzzz....) move in increments of 1. Maybe there are AWACS
options which are (zzzzzz...) better than any before, or a better
range of (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......I knew I'd never be able to manage
it!).
The thing is that I would miss as many things from a flight sim review
as the Avault review missed about GPL. The first sim to properly model
a differential, to model centrifugal forces of moving parts within
engine and hubs, to model tyre marks, wheelspin and smoke as a
function of changing grip and airflow. There are myriad things which
would be totally lost on me in a flight sim, and that is why I could
never review one - even if I could write beautifully about it I simply
don't know enough about them to describe what is new and compare with
other products.
If I were running the review site I'd make damn sure the guy writing
the review did though....
Cheers!
John
I realise that John, but you'll see the light eventually ;-)
The direction I was heading in was that the specific details aren't what
"sells" sims to people. Exactly what's being modelled under the bonnet
isn't the issue, anyone who's ever been in a car driven closer to the
limits than the police would approve of can appreciate there's something
seriously impressive going on in GPL. Saying it's hard to drive isn't the
same at all.
Agreed, but then they're lost on most of the people who buy them too :-)
I'll stick with my original statement, that...
Experience *certainly* helps, but it's not enough on its own, and a
thorough approach can make up for a fair amount lot of ignorance and/or
apathy.
Andrew McP... who should be working out how to get under 1:33 at
Zandvoort, not wasting time here :-)
I've been unable to get any satisfaction from a driving sim since the GPL
demo came out in, what was it, April? Certainly a lot more than a month! I
think that was the whole point of the demo, to identify the target
audience in advance and let them get up to speed with the driving model.
Andrew McP
ROF!...owwwwwwwch!
> The day I lose a battle of wits with you will be the day the final
> nail goes in and I'm pushing up the daisies. Even then it would be a
> contest between equals...
--
Marc J. Nelson
SimRacing Online - http://www.simracing.com/
* Switch confused.net with concentric.net to reply...Confused-yet? *
> Yes everyone has
> their right to their opinion, but that's as far as it goes. Not all of
> them can be valid.
> Cheers!
> John
Deep philosophical point that, John. I could argue pretty coherently that
any opinion is valid. But this is hardly the forum for that. Anyway, I
regret sending that post - I was riled by the views aired, the "lets get
this guy sacked" theme struck me as rather vindictive. Losing your job or
even an income stream is a deal worse than criticising a good program. But I
guess many of the posts I was reacting to were posted in a similar mindset
to the one I was in when I posted mine. That I chose Johan's and Francios'
posts to explode at was mere chance. There were a lot worse.
Paul
Terrible confession here. An old girlfriend of mine was working on a magazine
that wanted to do a piece on tiling. She knew nothing about it which was only
slightly less than I did, so I wrote a "how to tile" article (which she turned
into good English). I wonder how many ghastly messes around shower units I
have contributed to. It would be a nice world if only people (like Randy
Magruder) who knew about things commented on them but I guess it doesn't work
like that. But there's worse still, when the mags get advertising that starts
to dictate not only what they write about but how favourable the reviews are.
I guess Avault can forget about any revenue coming their way from Sierra.
Paul
Quoted text (32 lines)
> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 1:24 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), > >John Wallace said he wouldn't put himself forward to review flight sims > >because they don't interest him at all. But that doesn't necessarily mean > >he wouldn't do a good job of reviewing them if he *had* to do so. It's as > >much to do with attitude and approach as personal experience. > It's more that because I find flight sims tedious I am unlikely to > pick up on the aspects of a particular flight sim that will enthrall > the enthusiasts (zzz...). For example if the flaps are usually only > (zzzz....) adjustable in increments of 5, perhaps it is a major bonus > that they (zzzzz....) move in increments of 1. Maybe there are AWACS > options which are (zzzzzz...) better than any before, or a better > range of (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......I knew I'd never be able to manage > it!). > The thing is that I would miss as many things from a flight sim review > as the Avault review missed about GPL. The first sim to properly model > a differential, to model centrifugal forces of moving parts within > engine and hubs, to model tyre marks, wheelspin and smoke as a > function of changing grip and airflow. There are myriad things which > would be totally lost on me in a flight sim, and that is why I could > never review one - even if I could write beautifully about it I simply > don't know enough about them to describe what is new and compare with > other products. > If I were running the review site I'd make damn sure the guy writing > the review did though.... > Cheers! > JohnOn Wed, 28 Oct 1998 20:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>> It's more that because I find flight sims tedious
>I realise that John, but you'll see the light eventually ;-)
Not unless lens flare makes it into N3 I won't....
I know, but they're appreciated by the afficianados and would be
totally missed by me <looks left> Oh, a wing, neat :-)
I'll go along with that.
You could try using the GP car <hoping that's really not with the GP
car....> :-)
Cheers!
John
*** :-)
Managed to *nearly* get under 1:30, but that was only because I was lapped
by the leader and made a nuisance of myself trying to hang onto his coat
tails. Scared the shyte out of me racing with the leaders for a few laps!
Andrew McP
On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:14:42 +0000, Paul Jones
>Deep philosophical point that, John. I could argue pretty coherently that
>any opinion is valid.
Hmmmm. You may of course hold any belief you like, but telling me the
glass of white wine in my hand is a small off-duty Czechoslovakian
traffic warden, while maybe "valid", is also wrong. :-)
Worse even than losing sales to a company unnecessarily, reducing
revenue and endangering the jobs of others? When you go to an
interview you never say "I'll do an okay job" - you tell them you're a
total star and capable of doing a great job. I think the company have
a right to expect that, and IMO it wasn't demonstrated in that review.
OTOH I agree with your comments about sacking - it's way too extreme
and anyway, the review may have been written with the guidelines laid
down by Avault and the guy did his job perfectly.
In that case someone else needs sacked ;-)
Cheers!
John
Well stated! I might add I agree with Avaults 2.5 stars as
well. Naturally I speak as one who didnt want to devote his
life to GPL and therefore returned it. I also guess it
wll be in the bargain bins right after Xmas. Only wish Ubisoft
in Moncaco II had a '67 retro mode than a 50. Or better yet,
Ubi doing a '67 to '72 F1 sim.
Quoted text (26 lines)
> I thought his review was pretty fair and evenhanded and follows closely with > the posts you see on this newsgroup. He mentioned that it is a very > difficult game to master and would have been improved with "easier" or > "arcade" settings. That follows closely with postings I have read here. He > said that it would appeal to the hard core simmer. That follows with what > you see in this group. Don't minimize that a huge percentage of the people > in this group are hard core simmers. They don't mind....heck they even > enjoy....devoting hours to learn the feel of a car. They enjoy > experimenting with setups and developing the best setups on their own. That > is in contrast to the majority of people who want to get out there and race. > There is no doubt, from what I read, that this game has a steep learning > curve. There is also no doubt that Papy could have handled this curve > better. I have seen several suggestions, from letting people race the > trainers to adding steering assistance/braking assistance, etc, to being > able to set the AI's speed. In my opinion, Papy made a huge miscalculation > not doing this. Sure the hard core simmer will work through this hurdle but > the average racing fan will not. This narrows the market for the product > and lowers sales. Less sales mean less income for development of future > products and addons. Papy's "let the casual racer be damned" attitude may > send this fine simulation straight to the bargain shelves. A pity really. > Sure it will continue to be hallowed by the hard core simmers but, > unfortunately, there are not enough of 'em out there to support the huge > software development costs a product like this has. Papy needs to appeal to > the whole racing set (like they did with the Nascar series) in order to stay > in business.On Fri, 06 Nov 1998 21:43:10 -0500, Clancy Wilde
>Well stated! I might add I agree with Avaults 2.5 stars as
>well. Naturally I speak as one who didnt want to devote his
>life to GPL and therefore returned it. I also guess it
>wll be in the bargain bins right after Xmas. Only wish Ubisoft
>in Moncaco II had a '67 retro mode than a 50. Or better yet,
>Ubi doing a '67 to '72 F1 sim.
Tried Monaco back to back with GPL. By comparison, I would give Monaco
half a star, and the retro mode no stars at all. So you see, opinions
vary, and there is something on the shelves to suit everybody.
BTW, I'd be ***y grateful that you can return software. In
Australia, you can't return software at all If a disc was faulty,
they will replace it with another copy but you can't return. That's
industry wide practice.
Peter Holt
>What a load of rubbish,GPL is the best SIMULATION of any racing sim
out there,if you can`t drive it then your driving sucks.
Flight Sim,as Unlike you I crave REALISM.
If what you crave is realism, you'd better toss MSCFS rite in
the trash. Go get Microprose's EAW instead. And if you
also crave fun, the same advice applies. CFS isn't even in
the same class as EAW.
-dobe-
