Another low score GPL review

The January issue of PC Gamer give GPL a 70. Most games they consider as great they give 80 and above. 70 is usually an OK game. They say "over-modeled physics". Does that mean its too realistic and not enough arcade type physics? I wouldn't be surprized if they give the new Jeff Gordon racing game thing a better rating. Lutrell

See previous posts on this topic, most of which conclude PC gamer is a comic written for half-wits with an attention span of counting five on one hand - so 70 out of a hundred is quite generous in the circumstances..... Robert >The January issue of PC Gamer give GPL a 70. Most games they consider as >great they give 80 and above. 70 is usually an OK game. They say >"over-modeled physics". Does that mean its too realistic and not enough >arcade type physics? >I wouldn't be surprized if they give the new Jeff Gordon racing game thing a >better rating. >Lutrell

It seems their biggest beef with the game was the lack of any skill settings a la NASCAR 2. I kind of agree that this should have been included as most people aren't willing to put in the time to learn a sim this difficult. OTOH, I truly enjoy the difficulty of it. I spent an hour trying to shave a second of my best time at the Glen last night and was thrilled once I did it. Keep the Shiny Side Up, Russ >See previous posts on this topic, most of which conclude PC gamer is a comic >written for half-wits with an attention span of counting five on one hand - >so 70 out of a hundred is quite generous in the circumstances.....

Yes, the reviews biggest gripe was lack of difficulty setting, and I agree that there could be an easier setting option but I this should not give such a low review score since GPL is suppose to be a simulator and does it better than any other program. I think that like most people that don't understand racing think that to go fast you just grit your teeth and mash down on the accelerator. Lutrell >It seems their biggest beef with the game was the lack of any skill settings >a la NASCAR 2. I kind of agree that this should have been included as most >people aren't willing to put in the time to learn a sim this difficult. >OTOH, I truly enjoy the difficulty of it. I spent an hour trying to shave a

Quoted text (11 lines)

>second of my best time at the Glen last night and was thrilled once I did >it. >Keep the Shiny Side Up, >Russ >>See previous posts on this topic, most of which conclude PC gamer is a >comic >>written for half-wits with an attention span of counting five on one

hand - >>so 70 out of a hundred is quite generous in the circumstances.....

It probably means the game needs more than 60 seconds to master. Mass market demands simple arcade-style scenarios and the contents of the correspondence column of that mag show the level it is pitched at. Similarly Gran turismo is a superb "game" but simulator it is not. I would give the review a credibility rating of zero,. I wonder how long the reviewer spent trying to drive the car - probably got frustrated with crashing all the time and blamed the game for his inadequacy. I've got CPR and F1RS and played both extensively. For realism, accuracy, and online play it leaves both wayyyyyy behind - in fact haven't booted up CPR since GPL installed!! F1RS is great but who drives modern F1 cars - GPL is like driving a modern car on dirt - fantastic!!!!! My .01c worth Greg >The January issue of PC Gamer give GPL a 70. Most games they consider as >great they give 80 and above. 70 is usually an OK game. They say >"over-modeled physics". Does that mean its too realistic and not enough >arcade type physics? >I wouldn't be surprized if they give the new Jeff Gordon racing game thing a >better rating. >Lutrell

I think that the PC GAMER review was right on the money in criticizing GPL. Their job is to impartially evaluate a game and judge the merits of it for the *** public as a whole. The review clearly made it plain that the game has all of the merits that everyone touts on this thread. It clearly stated the merits of the physics model and the driver AI. Bu the review also gave a big debit for lack of any kind of scaling of the difficulty factor. IMO the low score serves as a big (and fair) warning to those who might buy this product. I personally feel that Papyrus made a huge mistake here. As the article quite correctly points out, there would have been little shame if Papyrus allowed us "weekend racers" a little fun by allowing different difficulty settings. This was a fair review IMO.

>Path: > I really really hope that Papyrus doesnt get suckered into dumbing down the >physics modeling for the next sims with GPL's model considering how they are >owned by Sierra who is in it just to make money:(((((( >dan which of course, the comrades at papy are not. Z.

% >Path: % > I really really hope that Papyrus doesnt get suckered into dumbing down the % >physics modeling for the next sims with GPL's model considering how they are % >owned by Sierra who is in it just to make money:(((((( % >dan % which of course, the comrades at papy are not. Don't panic folks... Grand Prix Legends is selling well. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> I really really hope that Papyrus doesnt get suckered into dumbing down the >physics modeling for the next sims with GPL's model considering how they are >owned by Sierra who is in it just to make money:(((((( Jeez, that's awful! Do you know of any other companies who were formed in order to make money, or people who only go to work in the morning to get that paycheque at the end of the month? Cheers! John

I think the fellow was trying to make a distinction between art (Papyrus) and commerce (Sierra). It's not a new dsinction . . . I understood it anyway. Ciao! David >> I really really hope that Papyrus doesnt get suckered into dumbing down the >>physics modeling for the next sims with GPL's model considering how they are

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>owned by Sierra who is in it just to make money:(((((( >Jeez, that's awful! Do you know of any other companies who were formed >in order to make money, or people who only go to work in the morning >to get that paycheque at the end of the month? >Cheers! >John

> I really really hope that Papyrus doesnt get suckered into dumbing down the > physics modeling for the next sims with GPL's model considering how they are > owned by Sierra who is in it just to make money:(((((( Dumbing down is probably not needed, they just have to make a game with cars that are easier to drive :) -- Anssi Lehtinen

Anssi Lehtinen wrote Errrr... that would be dumbing down a simulator Anssi. Racecars are very difficult to drive. Most of real racecar drivers will tell you this. It's not everybody who is able to hop in a 67 Formula 1 and be as performant as a Clark or Gurney. But even still, 98 stock cars ALSO are difficult to drive. As CART's, and Formula 1 of this year. There is no easy racecars to drive, especially when your near the limits of it. - 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) - NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide <NAS-Frank> http://www.nros.com/ - "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."--

On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:38:45 -0600, "david karr" >I think the fellow was trying to make a distinction between art (Papyrus) >and commerce (Sierra). It's not a new dsinction . . . That's a possible interpretation, but it does imply that Papyrus _aren't_ in it to make money. I think that will come as news to a lot of people who work there... Cheers! John

Not so. Such a distinction can be made for the purposes of delineating what seem to be broad company philosophies (Papyrus: "to make great sims and money"; Sierra: "to make great heaps of money"). No one is suggesting (or implying) that Papyrus isn't out to make a pile of cash. Wasn't it Jackie Stewart who, when asked if motor racing was a form of art, said (and I'm paraphrasing be the way), "I believe any human endeavor, when taken to the outermost limits of skill, becomes a form of art." Yes, one could take this too far, but in our own little driving sim universe those words could be seen to apply to what Papyrus is doing with GPL. I think a lot of us would agree. Anyhow, I only chipped in because I found your response to the fellow that originally made that distinction (commerce/art) to be rather glib and willfully harsh, despite the softening, ever-present . . . Cheers! David

Quoted text (12 lines)

>On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:38:45 -0600, "david karr" >>I think the fellow was trying to make a distinction between art (Papyrus) >>and commerce (Sierra). It's not a new dsinction . . . >That's a possible interpretation, but it does imply that Papyrus >_aren't_ in it to make money. I think that will come as news to a lot >of people who work there... >Cheers! >John

On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 06:48:57 -0600, "david karr" >Wasn't it Jackie Stewart who, when asked if motor racing was a form of art, >said (and I'm paraphrasing be the way), "I believe any human endeavor, when >taken to the outermost limits of skill, becomes a form of art." That is liberalism in the extreme. It can then be argued that rampany commercialism, taken to the outermost limits of skill, becomes a form of art in itself. The line between commerce and art becomes blurred beyond definition. Myself included, but it doesn't contradict the original point, which is fast being lost in the mists of obfuscation. Cheers! John

Before this strange thread dissipates into the obfuscatory realms of "liberal" mistification, I'd like to address what I see as your tendency to take moderate claims (such as Jackie S's.) and extend them infinitely to support a rather wild point. That's how you've taken my paraphrase of JS's statement to move way beyond either my or (I'd suggest) Jackie's intent. Yes, you can empty JS's position of any moral, social or political responsibility and serve it up as yet another instance of m***relativity (thus high predatory capitalism becomes art, in your curious example--but yet, isn't that how Madison Avenue portrays things these days? Postmodernism has invaded the boardroom!), but that completely disallows nuance and shades of meaning and even human agency. Actually (maybe I'm in a club of one here), this is getting interesting. Where does the notion of "art for art's sake" (apologies to Oscar Wilde) slide off into rampant relativity? A serious question, indeed. Well, John, I'm laying off this one for a bit. But one last questione: Why is Jackie's statement read by you as "liberalism in the extreme"? Seems an odd choice of words . . . A spectre hangs over RAS! Salut! David >On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 06:48:57 -0600, "david karr" >>Wasn't it Jackie Stewart who, when asked if motor racing was a form of art, >>said (and I'm paraphrasing be the way), "I believe any human endeavor, when

Quoted text (17 lines)

>>taken to the outermost limits of skill, becomes a form of art." >That is liberalism in the extreme. It can then be argued that rampany >commercialism, taken to the outermost limits of skill, becomes a form >of art in itself. The line between commerce and art becomes blurred >beyond definition. >>Yes, one >>could take this too far, but in our own little driving sim universe those >>words could be seen to apply to what Papyrus is doing with GPL. I think a >>lot of us would agree. >Myself included, but it doesn't contradict the original point, which >is fast being lost in the mists of obfuscation. >Cheers! >John