Hi everyone,
After reading the rather inconclusive GP2 review in PC Gamer, I
emailed the reviewer, and here is what I got back. Note I removed his
email address, but he does state that I can post this anywhere, so
here goes.
I've also stuck this file up in
[link lost in import]
23:51
30/01/96
Dear Ken,
Jim Flynn from PC Gamer here. Sorry it's taken all day to respond to
your email but I wanted the time to address your criticisms fully
rather than dash off a snap reply. Anyway, here goes, probably at
length and in no particular order.
Did I actually have a copy of the game to play when I wrote the
review? I think your phrasing was a little melodramatic but I can
fully understand your scepticism about this fact given the less than
perfect record of certain PC magazines in waiting for finished
versions of a product. Let me say now that of course I had a working
and playable copy of the game to play to review, and by this I mean an
almost complete (yes, almost) version. Before I worked on magazines -
i.e. when I read them a couple of years ago, I was constantly amused
and irritated by how low certain titles would stoop to get the first
review of a top game. I'm not going to pretend that the first review
doesn't sell magazines and I'm not going to try and sell you a load of
shite about it being Gamer's editorial policy to only review boxed
versions of the games. We do review unfinished products but we also
reject a hell of a lot of products that software firms claim are
reviewable. I played GP2 for an entire Saturday before even deciding
that it was reviewable, yet alone thinking about the mark. Geoff
Crammond is quite rightly one of the most protective programmers I
have ever met and for the previous three months he simply refused to
allow the game to be reviewed because it was not ready. However, if
game reviews are to appear before the thing is on the shelf (a
situation that is as much to your buying guide benefit as it is to our
magazine sales) certain minor touches can justifiably be over looked.
And, seeing as you ask, here are the most important fixes waiting to
be implemented. The list comes straight from Crammond in for earlier
this month, when I reviewed it.
''Plenty of speed up work (plotting less objects etc.) to make the
game run faster
Implementation of SVGA***pit
Multi-language implementation
Intelligent frame estimator does not work
Hardware compatibility checks
Pit lane speed limit
Front end animations
Sound switching for inside/outside car views
EXE size reduction
Minor graphical and AI fixes
Final check, adjustment and number of camera views''
I don't know about you but the SVGA***pit strikes me as perhaps the
only obvious infidelity giving any grounds whatsoever for complaint.
But the SVGA mode worked perfectly apart from the fact that the
***pit had been replaced by some colourful screen corruption. This
area was the same size as the***pit and in no way affected the
playability or speed. All the options worked. The minor graphical
fixes seemed confined to a couple of cars flickering around Spa's
hairpin and bus stop - again hardly crippling. And the AI fixes were
never noticeable apart from the fact that Jos Verstappen seemed to win
a lot of races. The cars themselves were irritatingly clever in every
situation.
Obtaining screen shots is the scourge of PC magazines. DOS Extender
programs frequently conflict with our VGA grabber and grabbing SVGA
screens is a nightmare under any circumstances. As SVGA games become
more common, we are finding that we increasingly have to rely on the
publishers/developers to provide representative screen shots. I can
only apologise - I tried running Screen Thief, Pinch f12, the Windows
95 Print Screen facility, and our Action Replay card before conceding
defeat. The only grabs I could obtain, and these involved restarting
the game after each one, were those in the boxout on page 61 and all
of those on page 63 bar the ***-captioned small one. Pre-supplied
grabs are a regrettable fact and one that is repeated for Tilt,
Battleground Ardennes and Endorfun to name the first three I saw in
this issue.
It may be hard to believe but a lot of people have not actually played
F1GP. I wanted the review to be an introduction to one of the best
games I've played rather than a technical rundown of the AI routines.
An in-depth boxout on detail settings and machine speeds is more
important to the 75% of readers with 486s than a pit stop data-logger
analysis. The tarmac changes colour perfectly around Silverstone's new
sections, the wheels jig around and rumble when you go over kerbs and
the exhaust backfires beautifully when you're changing down and trying
to take a chicane. Of course the backmarkers generally pull over -
it's a stunning simulation and I hoped this message would come across
generally without having to specifically address every point in the
game. People who look for such details in a review are 100% certain to
buy the game anyway. As I say, the review was meant to communicate
that GP2 is in a different class to Indycar II and is the best racing
game ever. If this doesn't persuade people to buy it minutiae like
these wont. Try it and see.
And finally, a small proportion of the PC Gamer Geoff Crammond
interview did appear in a PC Format. Because I conducted it. I used to
work for Edge magazine, which had the first exclusive look at GP2 last
summer. I'm the only journalist who's been to Geoff Crammond's house
(and I say to try and show that he was directly involved in releasing
the game for review, not as some petulant justification for reviewing
it). It's no exaggeration to say that Crammond has made at least as
great a contribution to software as any other programmer, including
Shigeru Miyamoto, Yu Suzuki or Sid Meier. If I have just said how
wonderful his latest effort is and happen to have the only interview
with the man available of course I'm going to use it. Yeah, there was
a cross over, but remember he's not done a game since 1991, many new
PC owners will not have heard of him and its the only chance you'll
get for a while to hear what the creator of Revs, The Sentinel, Stunt
Car Racer and F1GP has to say. It was a considerable bonus, there was
more in there than in the PCF article and the alternative was a review
of an unfinished version of This Means War. You make it sound like I
pinned you down and read it to you repeatedly in my worst Donald Duck
voice.
Anyway, I've got to see if Civ2 is ready to be reviewed. And the
sequel to a nigh on perfect strategy game is a damn site harder to
judge than a racing game. Which probably explains why it's so late
now. I hope this has clarified the situation and that you can at least
accept the arguments, if not agree with them. I personally think that
Gamer is good value for money and I'm sorry you wont buy it again.
It's your opinion, but mine is that you'll love the game when it's
out. If you've got any more queries I'll answer them in a much more
succinct manner, and if anyone you know on the net has similar
grievances please feel free to post this to where ever is most
you decide to and anyone wants to respond.
Thanks
Jim Flynn
<snip>
<snip>
This at least gives us some idea as to why it is so late ! I applaud
Geoff Crammond for refusing to release the game until it is well and
truly finished. I personally am prepared to wait.
Thanks for posting this, Ken.
