Lame brain reviews, by PC Gamer

Have any of you read the recent review of N3 in PC Gamer? I can't believe they gave it such a bad score. I intend to write to them and complain about what the fudge they think they're doing! Phil Winstow ICQ: 57400677

I think they must have reviewed a different game to the Nascar 3 everyone play's and raves on about, or maybe they tried playing it on an old 386 sx ?

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Have any of you read the recent review of N3 in PC Gamer? >I can't believe they gave it such a bad score. I intend to write to >them and complain about what the fudge they think they're doing! >Phil Winstow > ICQ: 57400677

Looked about right to me. It's based on an ancient game engine. It's as good a game as anyone could expect being based on such an old engine, but it would've rated higher if Sierra would've allowed Papy to release the *real* NASCAR3 (which may wind up being N4). Could've been lower, but not much higher. The only review that still gets me is the January '99 review of GPL: 70%!?

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Have any of you read the recent review of N3 in PC Gamer? > I can't believe they gave it such a bad score. I intend to write to > them and complain about what the fudge they think they're doing! > Phil Winstow > ICQ: 57400677

-- ----------------------------------- Morgan Vincent Wooten http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/ -----------------------------------

PLONK*

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> Have any of you read the recent review of N3 in PC Gamer? >> I can't believe they gave it such a bad score. I intend to write to >> them and complain about what the fudge they think they're doing! >> Phil Winstow >> ICQ: 57400677

Why plonk him? I agree with him. I mean 84% wasn't bad. It's not the PCGamer game of the month. If you look at the beginning of the review section, you will see what corresponds to the ratings given. The graphics are good, the gameplay is good, but let's face it, it didn't do a revolution physics wise. You better plonk me too then. Btw, with NL, N3 is the only racing sim I'm playing right now, so it gives you an idea where I stand. Philster

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >Looked about right to me. It's based on an ancient game engine. It's as good a > >game as anyone could expect being based on such an old engine, but it would've > >rated higher if Sierra would've allowed Papy to release the *real* NASCAR3 > >(which may wind up being N4). Could've been lower, but not much higher. The > >only review that still gets me is the January '99 review of GPL: 70%!? > PLONK* > >> Have any of you read the recent review of N3 in PC Gamer? > >> I can't believe they gave it such a bad score. I intend to write to > >> them and complain about what the fudge they think they're doing! > >> Phil Winstow > >> ICQ: 57400677

Skotty, In case you haven't read the review, here's a few choice quotes: American stock car simulation on the market..."<< powerful new 3D sound engine..."<< There are a few comparisons to GPL, but, only in the sense that "this is how they did it in N3, but, if they'd used the GPL engine, they could've done this...." N3 is a kick-ass ride!! Bob

Quoted text (29 lines)

> On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 20:23:09 -0500, Philster > >Why plonk him? I agree with him. I mean 84% wasn't bad. It's not the > >PCGamer game of the month. If you look at the beginning of the review > >section, you will see what corresponds to the ratings given. The > >graphics are good, the gameplay is good, but let's face it, it didn't do > >a revolution physics wise. You better plonk me too then. Btw, with NL, > >N3 is the only racing sim I'm playing right now, so it gives you an idea > >where I stand. > I may have jumped the gun. :) I didnt personally check out the review > so Im not sure what they rated it at. > It just kinda sounded like a GPL fanatic abusing the Nascar sims > again. It may be an old engine, but it's still the best Nascar > simulation. Is the review comparing it to GPL? cause thats the only > "better physics" sim they could even try and compare it to. > Guess I should read the review myself. :) > >Philster > >> >Looked about right to me. It's based on an ancient game engine. It's

as good a > >> >game as anyone could expect being based on such an old engine, but it would've > >> >rated higher if Sierra would've allowed Papy to release the *real* NASCAR3 > >> >(which may wind up being N4). Could've been lower, but not much higher. The

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >> >only review that still gets me is the January '99 review of GPL: 70%!? > >> PLONK* > >> >> Have any of you read the recent review of N3 in PC Gamer? > >> >> I can't believe they gave it such a bad score. I intend to write to > >> >> them and complain about what the fudge they think they're doing! > >> >> Phil Winstow > >> >> ICQ: 57400677

On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 20:23:09 -0500, Philster

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Why plonk him? I agree with him. I mean 84% wasn't bad. It's not the >PCGamer game of the month. If you look at the beginning of the review >section, you will see what corresponds to the ratings given. The >graphics are good, the gameplay is good, but let's face it, it didn't do >a revolution physics wise. You better plonk me too then. Btw, with NL, >N3 is the only racing sim I'm playing right now, so it gives you an idea >where I stand.

I may have jumped the gun. :) I didnt personally check out the review so Im not sure what they rated it at. It just kinda sounded like a GPL fanatic abusing the Nascar sims again. It may be an old engine, but it's still the best Nascar simulation. Is the review comparing it to GPL? cause thats the only "better physics" sim they could even try and compare it to. Guess I should read the review myself. :)

Quoted text (27 lines)

>Philster >> >Looked about right to me. It's based on an ancient game engine. It's as good a >> >game as anyone could expect being based on such an old engine, but it would've >> >rated higher if Sierra would've allowed Papy to release the *real* NASCAR3 >> >(which may wind up being N4). Could've been lower, but not much higher. The >> >only review that still gets me is the January '99 review of GPL: 70%!? >> PLONK* >> >> Have any of you read the recent review of N3 in PC Gamer? >> >> I can't believe they gave it such a bad score. I intend to write to >> >> them and complain about what the fudge they think they're doing! >> >> Phil Winstow >> >> ICQ: 57400677

> Looked about right to me. It's based on an ancient game engine. It's as good a > game as anyone could expect being based on such an old engine, but it would've > rated higher if Sierra would've allowed Papy to release the *real* NASCAR3 > (which may wind up being N4). Could've been lower, but not much higher. The > only review that still gets me is the January '99 review of GPL: 70%!? The original poster looks like he is reffering to UK PC Gamer. They put GPL on the cover in October 98, gave it 92 % and put it on their favourite list for some months. I haven't read the Nascar3 review myself yet but I think they are not to fond of NASCAR-racing in general and probably not too e***d over an old game engine.

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > Have any of you read the recent review of N3 in PC Gamer? > > I can't believe they gave it such a bad score. I intend to write to > > them and complain about what the fudge they think they're doing! > > Phil Winstow > > ICQ: 57400677 > -- > ----------------------------------- > Morgan Vincent Wooten > http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/ > -----------------------------------

-- Olav K. Malmin remove spam when replying

> The original poster looks like he is reffering to UK PC Gamer. They put GPL > on the cover in October 98, gave it 92 % and put it on their favourite list > for some months. You're right, I was refering to the UK PC Gamer. I wasn't aware there was a different PC Gamer magazine in the States or anywhere else. They're not. All they did was moan about how Nascar makes you turn left all the time, and never right. Obviously they haven't noticed the other non-oval tracks, including the Glen. Phil Winstow ICQ: 57400677