PC Gamer Review of GPL, Rather unkind scores!

Just got the January edition of PC Gamer (one of the most comprehensive, and unbiased PC mag's on the market, IMO unlike the Ziff Davis rags that give biased reviews of products that advertise in their rag...) On page176 they review Grand Prix Legends, and on a scale from 0-100 it only scored a 70.... Basically they trashed Sierra/Papyrus as saying the game is virtually undriveable! They go on to say that it's a game only for serious sim racers, and if your just looking for a fun game you can jump into and race without hours and hours and hours of practice/training this one is definitely not for you! Here is a few lines from the review.... ->For reasons known only to Papyrus, its most recent games have also been lacking essential 3d hardware support,and at times you get the impression that it would bother them to even have their products called "games". The this is the company's first title with hardware support out of the box says volumes for its priorities, and the fact that Papyrus continues to make games that are maddeningly inaccessible for the average gamer says even more. <- and.... ->Being regarded as the greatest developer of racing sims seems to have gone to Papyrus' collective head. They may indeed create the most amazing physics models seen in any sim (ground or air). What they forgot to do was make a game that most people would want to, or even be able to, play! <- Ouch!!!!! The article goes on to point out the highs and lows of the game.... Highs: Superb physics model. Strong driver AI. Lows: No true difficulty settings. Coupled with the over-modeled physics, this means a steep, steep learning curve. Overall score: 70 BTW, They gave F1RS a score of a 90 or 92, I can't remember which, and ToCA got an 88, NFSIII also got a score of 88.

I really disagree with this evaluation. Yes its hard to drive but the cars in 1967 WERE very hard to drive. I really cant draw any direct comparisons but i have driven cars witout areo(friend has minisprint without wings) and driving it on pavement is hard enough. Dirt is almost impossible with out practice. Judging from this i think GPL is very accurate. IMO the absense of difficulty settings is rayther a nuesence. Yes it easy to change them if u know something about programming or someone tells u how to do it but a slider bar (like the one for detail bias, linear/non-linear etc) would be much easier. I do not however agree with what the call "over modeled" physics. IMO they are very true to form. I would give GPL at least a 90 if not a 97-100 But then again this is my opinion. Be interresting to see what some other reviews say.

Get a 100 in my book. I spent mucho dinero to be able to enjoy this sim at the highest level. It takes a long time to be able to drive at a competetive level but what other sim gives such satisfaction of a feeling of accomplishment when your done ?

Is this the UK PC Gamer? Because they had an extensive GPL review in November. It was honest and unbiased with GPL getting a rather nice 93% at the end of it all! Cheers! -- Graeme Nash Nash Racing Organisation(!) Lotus - Green/Green You know what to do with "don't_spam_me"... http://www.karisma1.demon.co.uk/ ICQ# 11257824 "Useless quote"

>>On page176 they review Grand Prix Legends, and on a scale from 0-100 it only >>scored a 70.... Basically they trashed Sierra/Papyrus as saying the game is >>virtually undriveable! They go on to say that it's a game only for serious >>sim racers, and if your just looking for a fun game you can jump into and >>race without hours and hours and hours of practice/training this one is >>definitely not for you! >I really disagree with this evaluation. Yes its hard to drive but the cars in >1967 WERE very hard to drive. ...<snip>....... >Judging from this i think GPL is very accurate. They didn't say it wasn't accurate, they said it was virtually undriveable. What's the *major* difference between "virtually undriveable" and "very hard to drive"? Furthermore, why is saying that it's a game only for serious sim racers considered negative? That's exactly what it is. In fact, it's not a GAME at all. I am not suprised that pc GAMEr doesn't like it! If they said it was a great game and really fun to drive, pretty soon a whole hoard of NFS3 drivers who bought the sim on PC GAMER's recommendation would be in here ***ing about how hard it is and that it is impossible to drive! (And asking for patches to run cop cars and Diablos at Nurburgring) Instead of the fun and useful and productive exchanges about GPL that take place in here, you would have brilliant threads and dopey flame wars that start with: LameRZ, gRAnd pRiX LeggENdz f*cKiN SUCKS Suckahh!!! If U kant driVe 300 miles peR Hour like NEEd foR SpeEd 3 thEN you do'NT no WhAtTs KEWL. NfS3 is DA BoMb!! itt's PhAT! iT RULEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You should be happy they gave it a crappy score. daxe (always ready with a stupid, unpopular opinion) ---== http://www.newsfeeds.com - Largest Usenet Server In The World! ==--- ---== http://www.newsfeeds.com - Largest Usenet Server In The World! ==---

I have never really liked PC Gamer and now I don't think that I will ever even read their pages again. If they want to trash such an excellent and revolutionary sim as GPL is because the reviewer is a woos and has no skills outside of point and shoot game like Quake, then let 'em. I say that the whole sim community should***'em and cancel any subscriptions and not buy any future issues of their stupid magazine. There is no need to reason to dock 30 points off their rating simply because it is too hard. Just my two cents, Ryan Kocher

Quoted text (41 lines)

> Just got the January edition of PC Gamer (one of the most comprehensive, and > unbiased PC mag's on the market, IMO unlike the Ziff Davis rags that give > biased reviews of products that advertise in their rag...) > On page176 they review Grand Prix Legends, and on a scale from 0-100 it only > scored a 70.... Basically they trashed Sierra/Papyrus as saying the game is > virtually undriveable! They go on to say that it's a game only for serious > sim racers, and if your just looking for a fun game you can jump into and > race without hours and hours and hours of practice/training this one is > definitely not for you! > Here is a few lines from the review.... > ->For reasons known only to Papyrus, its most recent games have also been > lacking essential 3d hardware support,and at times you get the impression > that it would bother them to even have their products called "games". The > this is the company's first title with hardware support out of the box says > volumes for its priorities, and the fact that Papyrus continues to make > games that are maddeningly inaccessible for the average gamer says even > more. <- > and.... > ->Being regarded as the greatest developer of racing sims seems to have gone > to Papyrus' collective head. They may indeed create the most amazing physics > models seen in any sim (ground or air). What they forgot to do was make a > game that most people would want to, or even be able to, play! <- > Ouch!!!!! > The article goes on to point out the highs and lows of the game.... > Highs: Superb physics model. Strong driver AI. > Lows: No true difficulty settings. Coupled with the over-modeled physics, > this means a steep, steep learning curve. > Overall score: 70 > BTW, They gave F1RS a score of a 90 or 92, I can't remember which, and ToCA > got an 88, NFSIII also got a score of 88.

Jay J wrote How can over-modeled physics be bad ?? I don't understand the logic. - Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> Good race at the Brickyard! - Official Mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. - Excuse me for my English (I'm French speaking) - Sponsored by http://www.awpss.com/ on the NROS - "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."--

Well, if PC "Gamer" (whatever a "Gamer" is) want to reduce every piece of software to the level of their standards let them stew in their own mediocrity. Most people are tired of one-dimensional "games" that hold your attention for five minutes and are as challenging as reading the first three letters of the alphabet (big letters mind). Good quality software is a welcome rarity and GPL stands out a mile. The review won't have done any harm, since saying "this is only for serious sim racers" will of course attract a lot of people. I am no particular fan of Sierra but I think quality software should be encouraged. Most software reviewers (but of course not all) are callow nerds who write in order to appeal to nine year olds with an attention span of a few seconds. Robert >Just got the January edition of PC Gamer (one of the most comprehensive, and >unbiased PC mag's on the market, IMO unlike the Ziff Davis rags that give >biased reviews of products that advertise in their rag...) >On page176 they review Grand Prix Legends, and on a scale from 0-100 it only

Quoted text (19 lines)

>scored a 70.... Basically they trashed Sierra/Papyrus as saying the game is >virtually undriveable! They go on to say that it's a game only for serious >sim racers, and if your just looking for a fun game you can jump into and >race without hours and hours and hours of practice/training this one is >definitely not for you! >Here is a few lines from the review.... >->For reasons known only to Papyrus, its most recent games have also been >lacking essential 3d hardware support,and at times you get the impression >that it would bother them to even have their products called "games". The >this is the company's first title with hardware support out of the box says >volumes for its priorities, and the fact that Papyrus continues to make >games that are maddeningly inaccessible for the average gamer says even >more. <- >and.... >->Being regarded as the greatest developer of racing sims seems to have

gone >to Papyrus' collective head. They may indeed create the most amazing physics

Quoted text (16 lines)

>models seen in any sim (ground or air). What they forgot to do was make a >game that most people would want to, or even be able to, play! <- >Ouch!!!!! >The article goes on to point out the highs and lows of the game.... >Highs: Superb physics model. Strong driver AI. >Lows: No true difficulty settings. Coupled with the over-modeled physics, >this means a steep, steep learning curve. >Overall score: 70 >BTW, They gave F1RS a score of a 90 or 92, I can't remember which, and ToCA >got an 88, NFSIII also got a score of 88.

Jay, when it comes to auto sims these rags cater to the arcade crowd. We can only thank our lucky stars that Papy has not caved to this probable money-making approach. On flight sims the mags often seem a bit more tolerant (often due to more hard core and professional input), but I guess Joe Reviewer is not gonna admit that skills the family Geo Metro should not translate directly to a 400HP 1300lb pocket rocket <g>. Don't let it get you down... we don't need the NFS folks online in GPL anyhow ;-) Rgds, Mark R.

GPL is for the hard core. It will keep the Rif-Raf out. If I am ever able to drive it competively I will feel like I accomplished something. The review was accurate. If they rate it too high and people buy on their word most will be disappointed. It is just to hard for the average Joe and requires too much hardware to run. We might like it , but it is not for everyone. Don

Well, I for one ain't gonna be buying any more copies of PC Gamer. Anyone who reviews a game like Grand Prix Legends and can't see that it's quite simply the greatest race sime to date is obviously incompetent (or being "influenced" by other software companies). I'll no longer let PC Gamer influence my purchases in ANY way (no that they did in the first place :) It's not that I'm a big GPL fan and have feel some irrational loyalty to a game I really enjoy. It's simply that a friggin' BLIND man could see that GPL is the superior race sim to date. S.C."Gritz" Petty Spectre Racing http://members.xoom.com/Gritz/Spectre/spectreracing.htm >Just got the January edition of PC Gamer (one of the most comprehensive, and >unbiased PC mag's on the market, IMO unlike the Ziff Davis rags that give >biased reviews of products that advertise in their rag...) >On page176 they review Grand Prix Legends, and on a scale from 0-100 it only

Quoted text (19 lines)

>scored a 70.... Basically they trashed Sierra/Papyrus as saying the game is >virtually undriveable! They go on to say that it's a game only for serious >sim racers, and if your just looking for a fun game you can jump into and >race without hours and hours and hours of practice/training this one is >definitely not for you! >Here is a few lines from the review.... >->For reasons known only to Papyrus, its most recent games have also been >lacking essential 3d hardware support,and at times you get the impression >that it would bother them to even have their products called "games". The >this is the company's first title with hardware support out of the box says >volumes for its priorities, and the fact that Papyrus continues to make >games that are maddeningly inaccessible for the average gamer says even >more. <- >and.... >->Being regarded as the greatest developer of racing sims seems to have

gone >to Papyrus' collective head. They may indeed create the most amazing physics

Quoted text (16 lines)

>models seen in any sim (ground or air). What they forgot to do was make a >game that most people would want to, or even be able to, play! <- >Ouch!!!!! >The article goes on to point out the highs and lows of the game.... >Highs: Superb physics model. Strong driver AI. >Lows: No true difficulty settings. Coupled with the over-modeled physics, >this means a steep, steep learning curve. >Overall score: 70 >BTW, They gave F1RS a score of a 90 or 92, I can't remember which, and ToCA >got an 88, NFSIII also got a score of 88.

I think Mark has hit the nail on the head here. The average Joe doesn't fly his Geo plane to work every day, so it doesn't seem that ridiculous that he can't jump into a flight sim and fly like a pro. He does, however, drive his Geo Metro car to work every day, so driving a racecar should be pretty easy--faster, but basically the same skillset. I work my ass off on GPL, and I still suck--and I love it more each time I play it. Now, THAT'S an endor***t!

Quoted text (58 lines)

>Jay, when it comes to auto sims these rags cater to the arcade >crowd. We can only thank our lucky stars that Papy has not caved >to this probable money-making approach. On flight sims the mags >often seem a bit more tolerant (often due to more hard core and >professional input), but I guess Joe Reviewer is not gonna admit >that skills the family Geo Metro should not translate directly to >a 400HP 1300lb pocket rocket <g>. >Don't let it get you down... we don't need the NFS folks online >in GPL anyhow ;-) >Rgds, >Mark R. >>Just got the January edition of PC Gamer (one of the most comprehensive, and >>unbiased PC mag's on the market, IMO unlike the Ziff Davis rags that give >>biased reviews of products that advertise in their rag...) >>On page176 they review Grand Prix Legends, and on a scale from 0-100 it only >>scored a 70.... Basically they trashed Sierra/Papyrus as saying the game is >>virtually undriveable! They go on to say that it's a game only for serious >>sim racers, and if your just looking for a fun game you can jump into and >>race without hours and hours and hours of practice/training this one is >>definitely not for you! >>Here is a few lines from the review.... >>->For reasons known only to Papyrus, its most recent games have also been >>lacking essential 3d hardware support,and at times you get the impression >>that it would bother them to even have their products called "games". The >>this is the company's first title with hardware support out of the box says >>volumes for its priorities, and the fact that Papyrus continues to make >>games that are maddeningly inaccessible for the average gamer says even >>more. <- >>and.... >>->Being regarded as the greatest developer of racing sims seems to have gone >>to Papyrus' collective head. They may indeed create the most amazing physics >>models seen in any sim (ground or air). What they forgot to do was make a >>game that most people would want to, or even be able to, play! <- >>Ouch!!!!! >>The article goes on to point out the highs and lows of the game.... >>Highs: Superb physics model. Strong driver AI. >>Lows: No true difficulty settings. Coupled with the over-modeled physics, >>this means a steep, steep learning curve. >>Overall score: 70 >>BTW, They gave F1RS a score of a 90 or 92, I can't remember which, and ToCA >>got an 88, NFSIII also got a score of 88.

-- Rick Worrell Sports *** Network [link lost in import: /***.com]

> Just got the January edition of PC Gamer (one of the most comprehensive, and > unbiased PC mag's on the market, IMO unlike the Ziff Davis rags that give > biased reviews of products that advertise in their rag...) Exactly how a magazine that was infamous for giving Outpost, Lords of Magic and Ascendancy over 80% can be considered "unbiased" is really beyond me. At least CGW waits until they play the whole game before reviewing it. Also, PC Gamer has in the past "reviewed" games which never even became released (like one Warhammer strategy/action game which was scrapped at the last minute, but was "Reviewed" by PC Gamer anyway). Sorry, but the magazine is pretty much crap. And this "review" of GPL is further evidence of its deterioration. Grimfarrow

The UK Version of PC Gamer isn't perfect, but as a demonstration of their coolness they gave Geoff Crammond's F1GP1 and GP2 (95%) number >7< in their July 1998 top 100 games of all time, beating all other racing games! if you want to read the UK PC Gamer review of GPL email me and I'll send it cos it's not bad at all. > Is this the UK PC Gamer? Because they had an extensive GPL review in > November. It was honest and unbiased with GPL getting a rather nice 93% > at the end of it all!

LoL...Well, I wholeheartedly agree with "Gritz's" comments - In my own humble opinion, GPL is the BEST racing sim I've played - PERIOD! Um, I've included a listing of what pc race sims I've played: -ICR1/2 -MS CART Precision Racing -NASCAR 1/2 -Ubisoft F1 Racing

At least they are explaining the rationale for the lower score...and theirs is and will be the opinion of most people--check out the sales figures for GPL if you need a reality check. For me, all of the "negatives" they cite are exactly the reasons I bought and enjoy GPL...but then like most of us here on r.a.s., I am not the average consumer for racing games. Marc. >Just got the January edition of PC Gamer (one of the most comprehensive, and >unbiased PC mag's on the market, IMO unlike the Ziff Davis rags that give >biased reviews of products that advertise in their rag...) >On page176 they review Grand Prix Legends, and on a scale from 0-100 it only

Quoted text (19 lines)

>scored a 70.... Basically they trashed Sierra/Papyrus as saying the game is >virtually undriveable! They go on to say that it's a game only for serious >sim racers, and if your just looking for a fun game you can jump into and >race without hours and hours and hours of practice/training this one is >definitely not for you! >Here is a few lines from the review.... >->For reasons known only to Papyrus, its most recent games have also been >lacking essential 3d hardware support,and at times you get the impression >that it would bother them to even have their products called "games". The >this is the company's first title with hardware support out of the box says >volumes for its priorities, and the fact that Papyrus continues to make >games that are maddeningly inaccessible for the average gamer says even >more. <- >and.... >->Being regarded as the greatest developer of racing sims seems to have

gone >to Papyrus' collective head. They may indeed create the most amazing physics

Quoted text (16 lines)

>models seen in any sim (ground or air). What they forgot to do was make a >game that most people would want to, or even be able to, play! <- >Ouch!!!!! >The article goes on to point out the highs and lows of the game.... >Highs: Superb physics model. Strong driver AI. >Lows: No true difficulty settings. Coupled with the over-modeled physics, >this means a steep, steep learning curve. >Overall score: 70 >BTW, They gave F1RS a score of a 90 or 92, I can't remember which, and ToCA >got an 88, NFSIII also got a score of 88.

I do have to admit though that GPL would be ALOT more fun if it had difficulty switches for AI and physics. It is almost impossible to successfully complete one lap during race conditions in a GPL car. I just don't have the time anymore to spend hours and hours practicing. Sometimes I just like to hop in and race! It really should have come with more options for difficulty

Your kidding right? Mike

says... PC Lamer is not unbiased at all. In fact although I agree that most magazines show some level of "adjustment" on occasion,PC Lamer has constantly shown their inability to be trusted. FACT: In 1996 the AVERAGE rating given to games by PC Lamer was in the mid 80% range. They seemed to love almost everything. FACT: In 1997 after severe criticism from the public and other media, PC Lamer decided they needed to lower this average. However, they did this not by giving more accurate ratings to the Big Publishers games, but by including several patsy reviews in each issue. These "added in" reviews were almost always of games that were OVER 6 MONTHS OLD (and usually were almost impossible to find by then in any store). They pan a few titles that came out six-nine months ago by some small publisher, and then go on to review Big Publisher games that came out less than a month ago. FACT: PC Lamer claims to only review "Finished Games" and yet is the only magazine with the fine distinction of having printed REVIEWS (not pre- views, but full fledged reviews) of TWO games that were never even published. They also have had reviews of games in print on the newsstand the same week that a game in released. This is particularly amazing considering the two month delay in print media. They rated ACENDANCY at 93% (wouldn't have anything to do with the reviewing publishing the strategy guide...no) They gave Chessmaster 5000 a 90% in spite of the fact that the game was so bug ridden as to make its entire database unusable. I haven't read that magazine since last year when their cover proclaimed "BIGEST ISSUE EVER!!! 444 PACKED PAGES" Well t was try, there were 444 pages, of course 63% of those pages were FULL PAGE ADS, that left a whopping 164 pages for everything else (including any ads that weren't full page). By the time you got done with table of contents, the "whats on the CD" section, you ended up with a magazine that was many things, like impossible to enjoy. Oh god that magazine sucks. Check out: http://www.pathcom.com/~kenl/ <snip of yet another PC Lamer reviewers ineptitude> -- *** Support open DVD *** No phone line connection No charge for additional viewings No records of what you watch Cheaper to rent Cheaper to own DIVX: Watching you watch movies DIVX: You watch it, it watches you DIVX: Its hard to beleive it, but Bill Gates has nothing to do with it!

Scary but true. Everyone thinks they are skillful drivers and could lay down a few fast laps if given the chance. Humorous. Mike

>>>On page176 they review Grand Prix Legends, and on a scale from 0-100 it >only >>>scored a 70.... Basically they trashed Sierra/Papyrus as saying the game >is >>>virtually undriveable! They go on to say that it's a game only for serious >>>sim racers, and if your just looking for a fun game you can jump into and >>>race without hours and hours and hours of practice/training this one is >>>definitely not for you! >>I really disagree with this evaluation. Yes its hard to drive but the cars >in >>1967 WERE very hard to drive. ...<snip>....... >>Judging from this i think GPL is very accurate. >They didn't say it wasn't accurate, they said it was virtually undriveable. >What's the *major* difference between "virtually undriveable" and "very hard

Quoted text (16 lines)

>to drive"? >Furthermore, why is saying that it's a game only for serious sim racers >considered negative? That's exactly what it is. In fact, it's not a GAME >at all. I am not suprised that pc GAMEr doesn't like it! If they said it >was a great game and really fun to drive, pretty soon a whole hoard of NFS3 >drivers who bought the sim on PC GAMER's recommendation would be in here >***ing about how hard it is and that it is impossible to drive! (And >asking for patches to run cop cars and Diablos at Nurburgring) Instead of >the fun and useful and productive exchanges about GPL that take place in >here, you would have brilliant threads and dopey flame wars that start >with: >LameRZ, >gRAnd pRiX LeggENdz f*cKiN SUCKS Suckahh!!! If U kant driVe 300 miles peR >Hour like NEEd foR SpeEd 3 thEN you do'NT no WhAtTs KEWL. NfS3 is DA

BoMb!! >itt's PhAT! iT RULEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > You should be happy they gave it a crappy score. >daxe (always ready with a stupid, unpopular opinion) You're probably right - and your 15 year old wArEz ROOLZ dude impression was hilarious :-) -- Ken Go #43 and #44 "If I went 'round claiming I was Emperor because some moistened bink lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away" - anonymous peasant volksy (at) geocities (dot) com volksy (at) yahoo (dot) com

hmmm . . . that's Barbour, not Barber, folks . . . >>> Just got the January edition of PC Gamer (one of the most comprehensive, >and >>> unbiased PC mag's on the market, IMO unlike the Ziff Davis rags that give >>> biased reviews of products that advertise in their rag...) >I do have to admit though that GPL would be ALOT more fun if it had >difficulty switches for AI and physics. It is almost impossible to >successfully complete one lap during race conditions in a GPL car. I just >don't have the time anymore to spend hours and hours practicing. Sometimes I >just like to hop in and race! It really should have come with more options >for difficulty

MS CART. Now theres one I'm glad I didnt buy, if its even remotely close to the demo. I spent who knows how long downloading it, and deleted it after about two laps. Didnt feel it was worth the HD space.

What they said was right on the money. The average gamer will not like this title. I can think of few people I know personally, if any, to whom I would give it to for Christmas. If you randomly picked100 of PC Gamer's readers and let them play the game for a couple of hours, then had them rate it, I bet it would get some really high ratings and some really, really low ratings from frustrated / bored users who never "got it". I think 70% is a fair estimate of the average rating those randomly selected users would give. That is the true test of such a rating. They are trying to predict how well their average reader would enjoy the sim. rob. >Just got the January edition of PC Gamer (one of the most comprehensive, and >unbiased PC mag's on the market, IMO unlike the Ziff Davis rags that give >biased reviews of products that advertise in their rag...) >On page176 they review Grand Prix Legends, and on a scale from 0-100 it only

Quoted text (19 lines)

>scored a 70.... Basically they trashed Sierra/Papyrus as saying the game is >virtually undriveable! They go on to say that it's a game only for serious >sim racers, and if your just looking for a fun game you can jump into and >race without hours and hours and hours of practice/training this one is >definitely not for you! >Here is a few lines from the review.... >->For reasons known only to Papyrus, its most recent games have also been >lacking essential 3d hardware support,and at times you get the impression >that it would bother them to even have their products called "games". The >this is the company's first title with hardware support out of the box says >volumes for its priorities, and the fact that Papyrus continues to make >games that are maddeningly inaccessible for the average gamer says even >more. <- >and.... >->Being regarded as the greatest developer of racing sims seems to have

gone >to Papyrus' collective head. They may indeed create the most amazing physics

Quoted text (16 lines)

>models seen in any sim (ground or air). What they forgot to do was make a >game that most people would want to, or even be able to, play! <- >Ouch!!!!! >The article goes on to point out the highs and lows of the game.... >Highs: Superb physics model. Strong driver AI. >Lows: No true difficulty settings. Coupled with the over-modeled physics, >this means a steep, steep learning curve. >Overall score: 70 >BTW, They gave F1RS a score of a 90 or 92, I can't remember which, and ToCA >got an 88, NFSIII also got a score of 88.

Quoted text (14 lines)

> What they said was right on the money. The average gamer will > not like this title. I can think of few people I know personally, if > any, to whom I would give it to for Christmas. > If you randomly picked100 > of PC Gamer's readers and let them play the game for a couple > of hours, then had them rate it, I bet it would get some really high ratings > and some really, really low ratings from frustrated / bored > users who never "got it". I think 70% is a fair estimate of the > average rating those randomly selected users would give. > That is the true test of such a rating. They are trying to predict > how well their average reader would enjoy the sim. > rob.

But you're forgetting a lot with that assumption. How about all the positive things that GPL brought forth, like the physics and the atmosphere of the game? The article spent so much time whining about the difficulty that I really don't even see it as a review. Sorry, but in CGW, in which GPL got 4 stars out of 5, Gordon Gobles credited GPL where it's due, yet also chatised it for being too difficult and inaccessible. That, IMO, is a much, much better review. Grimfarrow

> Jay J wrote > >Lows: No true difficulty settings. Coupled with the over-modeled physics, > >this means a steep, steep learning curve. > How can over-modeled physics be bad ?? What the hell _is_ over-modeling? I think the physics should be as true to life as possible. However, I think you took the comment out of context here. Basically, I just have to agree with PC Gamer's review. The game is hard as hell, and frustrating to just about anyone at times. I don't see why anyone should care what the arcade rags write. -- Anssi Lehtinen

What you say below is true to some extent but most of my friends aren't die hard sim fans (In fact they generally enjoy the arcade side of things) but most of them found playing GPL with a wheel and pedals a thoroughly exhilarating experience. They all crashed almost constantly but they found that the enjoyment gained from getting it right far outweighed the frustration of hurtling towards a hedge backwards! Basically, most people I know enjoy sim driving, not quite as much as the people that read this group but all of them can recognise a good sim when they see one and most intelligent people I meet have driven GPL, GP2 and ICR2 and found them to be worth persevering with. I think what PC Gamer should have stressed is that GPL is not for kids, and going and buying it for your 6 year old for Xmas is not really a good idea (I let my 7 and 10 year old cousins play GPL and they just couldn't handle it!). PC Gamer in the UK gave the sim a good review but pointed out that it will take some perseverance to get the best out of what is ultimately a very satisfying sim. Sorry to go on so long. Jon.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>What they said was right on the money. The average gamer will >not like this title. I can think of few people I know personally, if >any, to whom I would give it to for Christmas. >If you randomly picked100 >of PC Gamer's readers and let them play the game for a couple >of hours, then had them rate it, I bet it would get some really high

ratings

Quoted text (7 lines)

>and some really, really low ratings from frustrated / bored >users who never "got it". I think 70% is a fair estimate of the >average rating those randomly selected users would give. >That is the true test of such a rating. They are trying to predict >how well their average reader would enjoy the sim. >rob.

: ->For reasons known only to Papyrus, its most recent games have also been : lacking essential 3d hardware support,and at times you get the impression : that it would bother them to even have their products called "games". The : this is the company's first title with hardware support out of the box says : volumes for its priorities, and the fact that Papyrus continues to make : games that are maddeningly inaccessible for the average gamer says even : more. <- While I agrew with their point about not making the game accessible to a wider audience, they are hopelessly wrong with this point. CART pre-dated hardware acceleration, and when Rendition cards hit the scene (before Voodoo even existed) Papyrus produced some very efficient code to support it and released it as a free patch. Nascar 2 was Rendition ready out of the box (again, before 3D cards had wide-spread acceptance, and before most software companies were writing direct 3D and glide titles - I think Psygnosis's F1 was the first 3dfx game). Their next title (GPL) is rendition and 3dfx ready, with patches coming for other cards. Exactly what was this reviewer expecting? Support for a card which didn't yet exist? What was this guy smoking? Stephen

> I do have to admit though that GPL would be ALOT more fun if it had > difficulty switches for AI and physics. It is almost impossible to > successfully complete one lap during race conditions in a GPL car. I agree that Papyrus should have made the game more configurable in terms of difficulty settings, race lengths, AI strength, etc., but to say that it is "almost impossible to successfully complete one lap during race conditions ..." is a bit strong. I've completed 30 consecutive laps at Monza in an online race with no real mistakes at a moderate clip (1:32's) in a Lotus (a hard to handle car), and believe me, I'm a mediocre driver, at best. It does take a bit of time to learn what these cars demand (lift while shifting, get the car settled before turning in, easy on the accelerator, etc.). And of course, you have to learn the track you're on to know what to do when, but that's true of all racing sims/games on road courses. Also, anybody who is is having a hard time controlling the car should download Alison's excellent Coventry setups. The car handles beautifully on all the tracks I've tried (well, a bit too much understeer at Monaco for my tastes, but that's another story). I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Of course, it takes a HUGE amount of time to get as good as the top GPL racers, but that's true of any sport/hobby/activity worth pursuing. Dave Ewing Dave Ewing

On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 00:11:50 -0800, Grimfarrow >> What they said was right on the money. The average gamer will >> not like this title. I can think of few people I know personally, if >> any, to whom I would give it to for Christmas. And that is why products shouldn't be reviewed by writers who aren't intimately familiar with the level of realism the software's authors are trying to achieve. But they should "subdivide" those readers into specific likes and dislikes before trying to review it as if it's targeted market is something as broad as "any person who likes cars". I dare say I couldn't write a review of "Barbie's Fashion Designer CD", as I have no taste, yet 100% of it's "target" audience (pre-*** girls, I suppose) would probably give it rave reviews. A sim - or any game -(hell all products for that matter) should be only "rated" as it stands against any directly-competing product on the marketplace, past or present, and not on it's "mass appeal". If it is the best thing out there for it's targeted market, it'll have near 100% "mass appeal", but only for it's target. GPL raised the bar significantly higher as the new target for all other "racing sim" programmers out there to try and hit. Rating a simulation for it's mass appeal to the general *** public is akin to saying a shit-barge SUV like an Explorer is somehow "better" than a Porsche 911 because "it has a bigger trunk and it rides smoother" and validating the comparison by saying "well, they both have 4 tires and an engine". Not even a fair comparison. Auto magazines (and there's damned few of them that I like) do better than so-called "***" mags. in at least trying to only compare apples only with other apples. In reviewing anything which calls itself a "simulation", there should be only one criteria: Is this closer to "real" than any other "simulation" on the market? Yes or no. "Hard to drive" isn't a criteria for being "good", it's merely a by-product of trying to be "real". True, but still the "difficulty" shouldn't enter into the actual scoring of the product, since it's trying to emulate something that obviously isn't easy in real life. "Difficulty" should be the side-bar article, and they should always balance that with the fact that despite the difficulty, it pays off *immensely* in the satisfaction you get when you know you just cut that damn-near perfect lap. :) Regards, Doc Wynne Technical Support & Network Services Support Engineering/dickson.net http://www.dickson.net -- Never a late apex, never a dull moment.

Geeze... so then why did they give it a "70"? That would be like doing a review of the game of Chess and giving it a low score because it takes "hours and hours" to become proficient at! There are more driving games than you can shake a stick at- go ahead, get a stick and try it! I haven't read the article, but going on what you say, PC gamer has missed the boat here. Fair enough. I love the sim, but let's face it- this was true. I had to buy a Voodo2 board to run the thing, and the box completely mislead me. But regarding the "games" comment- I think that is the whole review in a nutshell. PC Gamer reviews games, and doesn't like the fact that auto simmers don't call their things games. I mean, I didn't see it either, but do you think PC gamer gave Longbow this bad a review when it came out? Longbow was no easier than GPL, and there really was no mode that made things truly easy. It took hours and hours to figure out the***pit and control the aircraft. I think PC Gamer is predjudiced against Papy. GPL is state-of-the art; I can't even use any of my other sims anymore- even Papy's old ones. Suggesting that Papy is pompous is a low-shot; they've made an amazing simulator, something that has now made all other simulators obsolete in my book. And then PC Gamer claims that it is mediocre because it doesn't make itself easy for the masses. Does it pretend to? No. So how can it be criticized for that? It is like criticizing Papy for *not* selling out for the potential money it could have made as an arcade game like NFS. PC Gamer is predjudiced against Papy, that is clear. PC Gamer wants lowest common denominator games, and GPL wants to create real simulations. One has to ask- is it m***(or even legal) to use Hill or Clark's name and then give a menu selection to make them run slower than they really did on these courses, or give you elective advantages to beat them? That is what PC gamer wanted, sounds like. And even all that aside- how could GPL ever hope to compete with arcade titles as an arcade game? Every detail of the game was given to subtlety and precision. And given that there are probably 200 arcade racers on the market, is there no room for one real, no-holes-barred sim? They could spend the article criticizing the fact that the box doesn't make it clear that a good indication of hardware was not given, ... and perhaps even that it isn't clear enough to them on the box that this is a simulation and not a game. And then give it a 95%. But they simply have no grounds to give the sim a mediocre score; better to give no score, because this score says nothing. The game is a *zero* for someone looking for a game, and a *95%* for someone looking for a sim. 70 says nothing. So then I guess the review deserved something up in the high-90s. It is ironic that the aspects of the sim that make it endlessly appealing to simmers are the key issues PC Gamer lowers the rating for. My criticisms of the sim- it crashes and disconnects too much in multiplayer mode. The setups saving/deleting system is (like NASCAR2) too tedious. No dates associated with best times (I know we're supposed to be racing 30 years ago, but you've got to think of something- I can't tell when my best times were done. How about a "time from present" number?), automatic saving of race details and times in a default file (multiplayer always tosses me to the newspaper before I get a good chance to review). Oh, and of course, this is a program that requires special hardware. That info must be included on the box. That was certainly a *** surprise for me.

Quoted text (10 lines)

>>Just got the January edition of PC Gamer (one of the most comprehensive, and >>unbiased PC mag's on the market, IMO unlike the Ziff Davis rags that give >>biased reviews of products that advertise in their rag...) >>On page176 they review Grand Prix Legends, and on a scale from 0-100 it only >>scored a 70.... Basically they trashed Sierra/Papyrus as saying the game is >>virtually undriveable! They go on to say that it's a game only for serious >>sim racers, and if your just looking for a fun game you can jump into and >>race without hours and hours and hours of practice/training this one is >>definitely not for you!

I have to salute PC Gamer here- and A vault, and all others who've judged it on these grounds- GPL is a damn hard sim, and it's not for the quick thrill seeking. A valid measurement of any Game- sim, or otherwise has to be it's accessability, as well as it's realism, and i think too many this has been the beauty of stuff like GP2, which has worked on so many levels- from hard, to easy, and enjoyed by so many people. Rightly or wrongly, GPL doesn't have the scalable difficulty as well, and i think is quite fairly scored on these accounts, for lack of accessability. I don't think it really diminishes the scope or authenticity or realism of the Sim by scoring it at 70- just questions it's accessability- and that's spot on. Z.

> My criticisms of the sim- it crashes and disconnects too much in > multiplayer mode. Not with a cable modem (or more specifically <200ms pings) :-) It does tell you the dates of your own fastest laps. If your ALL-CARS screen shows Ferrari as the fastest car/lap, switch to the Ferrari-Only screen -- there are your times/dates. You can also export the ALL-CARS page, and the date is shown on there as well. It's the host exiting too soon. When I'm hosting, I chat about cool race instances to give you a chance to look over numbers and tell the others that the paper is coming. -------- Jason Monds "My other car is a Ferrari" (Please remove 'no extra spork' when replying)

I plan on writing a longer article about how PC Gamer has their head up their ass regarding racing simulations but for now this will have to do... I got the new Next Generation today and there is a review of GPL. It got a perfect score, 5 stars out of 5 A quote: "Overall there aren't enough adjectives to describe how excellent this is. If you're willing to make the investment it takes to become good, you'll be rewarded with what is perhaps the most exciting and engaging racing game we've ever had the priviledge to play." Now with all this talk about how PCG is for younger gamers, I submit this as evidence that just because your audience is younger, you don't have to write a review about how a game is "too tough" etc. It seems to me that Next Gen seems targeted at an even YOUNGER audience than PCG and they didn't feel it was necessary to warn people off. They told interested people of potential pitfalls but reviewed the game based on what they saw. If T. L. MacDonald had spent some more time with the sim before returning to Need For Speed or whatever, he may have "gotten it". But he didn't. He, instead, obssessed over stupid issues like "why do I only have 2 views to choose from?" What does he want to do? Drive from the tv1 view? WTF?! He thinks the sim is hard NOW. What about when he is trying to find an apex from a different camera angle. He even feels the need to mention that the ***pit obscures too much of the scenery. With comments like this, I have to conclude that he (a) was in a bad mood when he spent his half hour reviewing this simulation (b) was smoking crack (c) has never driven a car and doesn't plan too. (its too darn hard!) (d) all of the above. That being said, here is MY review: GPL is the best driving/racing simulator I have even experienced. Ever. So there. J.

Quoted text (14 lines)

>On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 00:11:50 -0800, Grimfarrow >>> What they said was right on the money. The average gamer will >>> not like this title. I can think of few people I know personally, if >>> any, to whom I would give it to for Christmas. > And that is why products shouldn't be reviewed by writers who >aren't intimately familiar with the level of realism the >software's authors are trying to achieve. >>> If you randomly picked100 >>> of PC Gamer's readers and let them play the game for a couple >>> of hours, then had them rate it, I bet it would get some really high

ratings

Quoted text (68 lines)

>>> and some really, really low ratings from frustrated / bored >>> users who never "got it". I think 70% is a fair estimate of the >>> average rating those randomly selected users would give. >>> That is the true test of such a rating. They are trying to predict >>> how well their average reader would enjoy the sim. >But they should "subdivide" those readers into specific likes and >dislikes before trying to review it as if it's targeted market is >something as broad as "any person who likes cars". >I dare say I couldn't write a review of "Barbie's Fashion >Designer CD", as I have no taste, yet 100% of it's "target" >audience (pre-*** girls, I suppose) would probably give it rave >reviews. >A sim - or any game -(hell all products for that matter) should >be only "rated" as it stands against any directly-competing >product on the marketplace, past or present, and not on it's >"mass appeal". If it is the best thing out there for it's >targeted market, it'll have near 100% "mass appeal", but only for >it's target. > GPL raised the bar significantly higher as the new target for >all other "racing sim" programmers out there to try and hit. >Rating a simulation for it's mass appeal to the general *** >public is akin to saying a shit-barge SUV like an Explorer is >somehow "better" than a Porsche 911 because "it has a bigger >trunk and it rides smoother" and validating the comparison by >saying "well, they both have 4 tires and an engine". Not even a >fair comparison. > Auto magazines (and there's damned few of them that I like) do >better than so-called "***" mags. in at least trying to only >compare apples only with other apples. > In reviewing anything which calls itself a "simulation", there >should be only one criteria: Is this closer to "real" than any >other "simulation" on the market? Yes or no. "Hard to drive" >isn't a criteria for being "good", it's merely a by-product of >trying to be "real". >>But you're forgetting a lot with that assumption. How about all >>the positive things that GPL brought forth, like the physics >>and the atmosphere of the game? The article spent so >>much time whining about the difficulty that I really don't >>even see it as a review. Sorry, but in CGW, in which >>GPL got 4 stars out of 5, Gordon Gobles credited GPL >>where it's due, yet also chatised it for being too >>difficult and inaccessible. That, IMO, is a much, much >>better review. > True, but still the "difficulty" shouldn't enter into the actual >scoring of the product, since it's trying to emulate something >that obviously isn't easy in real life. "Difficulty" should be >the side-bar article, and they should always balance that with >the fact that despite the difficulty, it pays off *immensely* in >the satisfaction you get when you know you just cut that >damn-near perfect lap. :) > Regards, >Doc Wynne >Technical Support & Network Services >Support Engineering/dickson.net >http://www.dickson.net >-- >Never a late apex, never a dull moment.

Lamer. I do respect some of the stuff that they do, but in the past they were not the most reliable source of information.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> A valid measurement of any Game- sim, or otherwise has to be it's > accessability, as well as it's realism, and i think too many this > has been the beauty of stuff like GP2, which has worked on so many > levels- from hard, to easy, and enjoyed by so many people. > Rightly or wrongly, GPL doesn't have the scalable difficulty as > well, and i think is quite fairly scored on these accounts, for > lack of accessability.

I Have to disagree here, I think GPL has plenty to offer the new sim racer, or the arcade racer, or even the "never driven a computer car before sir" racer? A friend of mine was visiting a few weeks ago, (building a new wall in my drive) but as it was raining (I'm in the UK!!!) he had to stop work for most of the afternoon. He asked if he could have a go on this *game* I'de been raving about all day (GPL). I hooked up my two pc lan in my study and loaded up GPL multiplayer, and set him up with an Eagle (trainer) on auto braking, auto throttle and auto gear changes, we drove a few laps at Monza. After those first couple of laps he asked me to turn off the auto throttle & brakes, leaving auto gears on. We had a few more laps, and then we spent about two hours racing each other, he loved the sim, and had a blast of an afternoon, and got the hang of the car after a few laps, and even learnt the circuit well by the end of the afternoon. And this is a guy who doesn't own a pc (or a console) and who's only driving experience is in a real car, or a trip to the seaside arcades about once a year!!! There are plenty of options in GPL to make it a *LOT* easier for the novice, so to say it has to be marked down in reviews because it is too difficult is a nonsence. *Peter* #:-)

>> A valid measurement of any Game- sim, or otherwise has to be it's >> accessability, as well as it's realism, and i think too many this >> has been the beauty of stuff like GP2, which has worked on so many >> levels- from hard, to easy, and enjoyed by so many people. Sometimes I put GP2 in, just for memories... then I see those menus, those endless menus and their pop-up boxes... and I generally quit. And besides, I need the damn CD inserted- that is always a pain, and games that require that tend to get forgotten fairly quickly. I actually find GPL to be more "user friendly", from the point of view of getting me in and out of races smoothly. Well, one can indeed scale the racers- but not from within the sim. In defense of the sim, I raise the point again in this post- is it morally right or even legally proper to be able to make acurately simulated racers from history race worse laps that they really did so you can beat them? The realism of this sim is so intense that IMO it starts to seem like an issue. Anyway, this sim has plenty of helps- no damage models, braking help, accelleration help. I don't see why it would need any more. The one problem I see is that with a full grid (when you have enough cars to allow a novice to compete), often one's computer is not powerful enough to handle it. But with only 5 racers... you are going head to head with the great of history, and hell if I can ever really beat Clark or Hill or so forth. But that is OK with me! I'd just assume keep my respect for the greats than pretend I am stomping all over them. I think ICR was tougher on me when I started it- I couldn't beat anybody at 80% or whatever it was! Well, one thing about this sim is that the model is more similar to driving a regular car than any sim I've ever used- of course, you don't usually drive a car at it's limits in real life. But the point is, if you know how to drive, some of the skills do transfer. As opposed to, say, GP2 or CPR, which i feel is an *** sort of driving- more akin to being on a rail than anything I do in a real car.