CPR: The most outragous review is on PCME

Oh yes please do visit http://www.pcme.com and read their CPR review. Here is the last paragraph: "CART Precision Racing is the first racing simulation to come along in years that is a total racing simulation package. It's not just another pretty 3D accelerated face in the crowd. CART is a solid racing simulation with enough depth and appealing 3D accelerated visuals to convert the most loyal ICR2 fanatic in a matter of laps. No doubt about it, this one's a keeper!" Ok stop laughing. But this is a real review!!! BTW, I do consider the author a friend but CPR sucks so bad that I just can't help myself on this one :-) -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

With all the jokes and criticisms about MS CART, I have to say that MS CART is quite fun to play when you race by yourself. But during the actual race with 12 or more cars, the framerate suffers greatly. I couldn't seem to tweak the framerate except to overclock my Monster 3D, which I have not done so until I install a fan first. Anyone here uses an AGP or an AGP compatible 3D card to play MS CART? What can I? I already have a P 200 MMX with 48RAM and Monster 3D, but couldn't squeeze out more framerates. -- Victor Chan

I don't often comment on other site's reviews, but I must admit this one is pretty funny! Ken The Game Pad http://gamepad.org/

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Oh yes please do visit http://www.pcme.com and read their > CPR review. Here is the last paragraph: > "CART Precision Racing is the first racing simulation to come > along in years that is a total racing simulation package. It's not > just another pretty 3D accelerated face in the crowd. CART is a > solid racing simulation with enough depth and appealing 3D > accelerated visuals to convert the most loyal ICR2 fanatic in > a matter of laps. No doubt about it, this one's a keeper!" > Ok stop laughing. But this is a real review!!! > BTW, I do consider the author a friend but CPR sucks so bad > that I just can't help myself on this one :-) > -- > Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

These are my two favorite quotes from the PCME review: "Another update [from TRI] which will address a small number of things, none of which kept me from enjoying the simulation, is in the works. The driving physics are really nice." "The AI drivers aren't dummies. I've almost given up on expecting a professional race car driver's intellect going up against me and 30+ other AI drivers thinking the same way in a sim of this type. The drivers aren't complete blooming idiots in this simulation, but they do put up a pretty good race. Putting it frankly, it's no worse than what we've grown to expect from a fast-paced racing simulation of this magnitude." Really. Bart Brown

Exactly *which* version of Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation is this person using? It can't be the same one that was foisted on the rest of the world before Christmas, surely? -- Bruce (at work) "Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get tired." (Jules Renard)

(snip) MS CARTis quite fun to play when you race by yourself. (unsnip) Sorta defeats the purpose somewhat, doesn't it? $XX for a solo racing game. Nah....I don't really think that it'll catch on! -- Bruce (at work) "Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get tired." (Jules Renard)

Unbelieveable! I did not think anyone could top the incompetent and dishonest reviews that were written by David Laprad of The Adrenaline Vault([link lost in import] or Garrett***s of Operation 3DFX([link lost in import] but this one takes the cake. Whether you like CPR or not, go read the review by Rod White at PCME([link lost in import] because it is absolutely hilarious. There are plenty of funny quotes about how good the AI is, and he calls both Grand Prix 2 and Indycar 2 "Indy" car simulators.The words "hard core simulation" are used throughout the review, but of course there is no mention of the lack of full course yellows, or AI that can be beaten by 20mph average on Professional settings. However, as a P166, 32mb ram, Pure 3D(6mb 3DFX) owner who has never been able to run CPR,patched or unpatched, at better than 20 frames per second with***pit on; I find the following quote the best of all. "It's not a resource hog. If you have a P166+ with a 3Dfx Voodoo Graphics or Riva-128 powered board, you should be in good shape." Its not a resource hog?!? Yeah right, and Grand Prix 2 has network play and weather effects. I should be in good shape to go back to playing the Rendition version of Indycar 2(CART Racing) with the new 3D enhanced/AI enhanced tracks provided by The Sim Project([link lost in import] I'll take 30 frames per second full detail, good AI, full course yellows, and the good control that Indycar 2 offers, over the frustrations of CPR anyday. After reading the reviews at The Adrenaline Vault and Operation 3DFX, I stopped visiting those sites for *** news and reviews because I felt they could no longer be trusted. I am now adding PCME to the list as well. Don Chapman

<<(snip) MS CARTis quite fun to play when you race by yourself. (unsnip) Sorta defeats the purpose somewhat, doesn't it?>> I guess the same could be said about sex... Bart

> After reading the reviews at The Adrenaline Vault and Operation 3DFX, > I stopped visiting those sites for *** news and reviews because I > felt they could no longer be trusted. I am now adding PCME to the list > as well. I have to agree. It seems as if it is getting quite difficult to find a _bad_ review of a game these days. I wonder if the reviewers really like almost every game out, or if the editors are spinning their words for fear they might***someone off...either way these reviews are of very little value, except for learning what features a game offers and for screenshots. That's why I come to the newsgroups to get reviews from actual players/simmers. If you just sit and listen for a little bit, it's usually easy to tell who is just spouting off and who really knows what they are talking about. For example, Papadoc's latest posts about F1RS have really been helpful. I feel like I have a good feeling for what I'm getting myself into (both good _and_ bad), as I'm about to buy this sim. Same sort of thing goes for my decision _not_ to buy CPR. Thanks guys and gals! -- The Scripps Research Institute http://www.scripps.edu/~jsmith

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Exactly *which* version of Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation is this > person > using? > It can't be the same one that was foisted on the rest of the world > before Christmas, surely? > -- > Bruce > (at work) > "Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get > tired." > (Jules Renard)

No he must have been trying the latest version of Microbrew Beer '98 :-)

Actually, a review is partially a matter of opinion and partially a matter of fact. It is a fact, for example, that CPR has slow framerates compared to other 3d accelerated games. It is also a fact that there are frequent AIcrashes and that the AI is not competitive. Opinion is simply whether or not the review thinks these things are good or bad, and how they affect his evaluation ogf the game. By not reporting on them in a racing sim review, the reviewer gives a serious misrepresentation of the game. This is just my opinion though. <g> Ken The Game Pad http://gamepad.org/ > Pardon my intrusion to this fascinating thread, but isn't all that's > written in the article an expression of one's opinion? Some of > you may not like CPR, but if the guy likes it, so be it. If you found > a mag that wrote reviews that matched your own thoughts exactly, > wouldn't it be rather boring (George Orwell excepted)?

Sorry, I forgot to spell check the above post. Guess I look like the incompetent one now!

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Actually, a review is partially a matter of opinion and partially a > matter of fact. It is a fact, for example, that CPR has slow framerates > compared to other 3d accelerated games. It is also a fact that there are > frequent AIcrashes and that the AI is not competitive. Opinion is simply > whether or not the review thinks these things are good or bad, and how > they affect his evaluation ogf the game. By not reporting on them in a > racing sim review, the reviewer gives a serious misrepresentation of the > game. This is just my opinion though. <g> > Ken > The Game Pad > http://gamepad.org/ > > Pardon my intrusion to this fascinating thread, but isn't all that's > > written in the article an expression of one's opinion? Some of > > you may not like CPR, but if the guy likes it, so be it. If you found > > a mag that wrote reviews that matched your own thoughts exactly, > > wouldn't it be rather boring (George Orwell excepted)?

Pardon my intrusion to this fascinating thread, but isn't all that's written in the article an expression of one's opinion? Some of you may not like CPR, but if the guy likes it, so be it. If you found a mag that wrote reviews that matched your own thoughts exactly, wouldn't it be rather boring (George Orwell excepted)? Style and grammar aside, I make it a point -never- to comment on another's review, period. Cheers! Marc 'L8BRKR' Nelson Sim Racing News - USA http://www.simproject.com/simnews Sim Racing News - UK http://sneezy.dcn.ed.ac.uk/simnews

Quoted text (37 lines)

> > After reading the reviews at The Adrenaline Vault and Operation > 3DFX, > > I stopped visiting those sites for *** news and reviews because I > > felt they could no longer be trusted. I am now adding PCME to the > list > > as well. > I have to agree. It seems as if it is getting quite difficult to find > a _bad_ review of a game these days. I wonder if the reviewers > really > like almost every game out, or if the editors are spinning their words > for fear they might***someone off...either way these reviews are of > very little value, except for learning what features a game offers and > for screenshots. > That's why I come to the newsgroups to get reviews from actual > players/simmers. If you just sit and listen for a little bit, it's > usually easy to tell who is just spouting off and who really knows > what > they are talking about. For example, Papadoc's latest posts about > F1RS > have really been helpful. I feel like I have a good feeling for what > I'm getting myself into (both good _and_ bad), as I'm about to buy > this > sim. Same sort of thing goes for my decision _not_ to buy CPR. > Thanks > guys and gals! > -- > The Scripps Research Institute > http://www.scripps.edu/~jsmith

The best magazine for having truthful reviews is Ultra Game Players. Unfortanatly they don't review the "***:)" sims like CPR. They mostly review consoles but they will put a bad game in it's place.

I reckon! Either that or he's good friends with Jack Daniels and Johnnie Walker! -- Bruce. (At home)

Very true, Marc. Problem is though that *all* reviews are the personal opinions of the reviewer. So in a situation where (a) a review gives a glowing report and (b) comments from actual buyers are scathing, if I were the person intending to purchase the product then I'd be very wary about the legitimacy of the review. This situation, of course, does not just apply to computer games! -- Bruce. (At home)

After reading this post, this is a message I sent to the nobrainer who wrote the review: Just what copy of the game were you reviewing when you wrote this article? You state there is not much more to ask for, how about yellow flags for one? How about decent AI for seconds? How about being able to make a lap without them taking you out of the race? And by the way, I have a P266 AGP with a Riva 128 AND a Monster 3d connected, and the best frame rate I can get is 30 fps, average is 20-25. And I greatly disagree: it is in fact another pretty 3d accelerated face in the crowd. I suggest you look at the rec.autos.simulators newsgroup, you will see I am not even close to being the only one who feels this way! 92%? How about 42%.

Hi Marc, By the way, thanks for the ICR2 3D tracks and AI enhancements at The Sim Project, and extra thanks to you and John for starting up Sim Racing News again!! I would love to see it become the "Bluesnews" of Sim Racing. Anyway, while I agree that reviews contain opinions, they should at least be factual. My problem with the reviews at The Adrenaline Vault, Operation 3DFX, and PCME, is that they border on flat out lies, and at the very least are extremely misleading. For example, all three reviews say that CPR has great use of 3D acceleration and provides a sense of speed and detail never before seen in other racing sims. The PCME review even says that CPR is not a resource hog and that it will run well on a P166 with 3D accelerator. This is just not true. It has been well documented, and even admitted by the CPR developers themselves, that CPR is lacking in the frame rate department. I have played CPR on everything from a P133 with Monster 3D to a PII300 with 128 Velocity, and while full detail on the PII300 can give you 25-30fps, it is in no way smooth. With other cars on screen, and depending on what track you are racing, I have seen the frame rates drop into the ***s, on a PII300?!? CPR is just NOT a good example of 3D acceleration in a racing sim. With full detail it is pretty, but it is not smooth, and it IS a resource hog. My main machine is a P166, 32mb, Pure 3D, which is the CPR recommended settings, and even with the patch, the best I can do is 20fps with the ***pit on. I have to have all the details that are so praised in these reviews turned off just to play. This includes roadside objects, draw hills, smoke and tire effects, shadows, and sky & clouds. Add a full field of cars to the mix and you can forget it, even on a PII300. These 3 reviews mention nothing of these problems. The second problem is that all 3 reviews praise the AI of the game. Now I guess it could be someones opinion that AI that can be beaten by 20mph average on professional settings in a 10% race is good, but that someone is probably not very rational. Two of the reviews actually mentioned the problem with the AI on the ovals, but still gave high overall ratings to the gameplay and AI. You can't play a full season with CPR because of the poor performance of the AI on the ovals, even with the patch. It is just that bad. Not to mention the actual performance of the AI, jerking from one side of the track to another, stopped in the middle of a turn, repeatedly smashing into other cars on the track, etc. I can provide countless replays of the poor performance of the AI. These reviewers could not be playing the same game as me and give the AI such high praise. My last complaint is that all 3 reviews praise CPR for being a hard-core simulation of CART racing, but fail to mention the lack of full course yellows. This gripe may be a little more picky, but I still think it is vaild because "no yellows" definitely takes away from the "sim" aspects of the game. The only reason I have made posts regarding these reviews, is because of how misleading they are to the game buying public that these sites supposedly serve. It frustrates me to see such unbalanced reviews that are obviously wriiten more for Microsoft/TRI's benefit than they are to inform me as a gamer. It is interesting to me that when Eagle Woman Alison Hine added a rather negative CPR review to her site several weeks ago, she was slammed by CPR enthusiasts and the developers for not providing a more balanced review. Her original review was actually very factual and outlined specifically her experiences with the game, however, she did modify it to be more "balanced". Now with the CPR patch release, she has once again re-reviewed the product and has resorted back to her original harsh impressions. However, she has still provided links to alternative, positive CPR reviews, thus providing more "balance". And this is all on her own personal site, not some commercial *** site! Why should we, the game buying public, not expect at least that same kind of balance from commercial sites and mags? Sorry, enough ranting for now. I actually have had some enjoyment with CPR on the Internet *** Zone, but the full product, even with the patch, is just not up to par(now that is opinion). Now that I have enhanced tracks and AI to play with on ICR2, I will wait and see what happens further with CPR and count the days until CART Racing 1999 arrives! Thanks again for your hard work on The Sim Project, Sim Racing News, and Sim Racing On-Line. These resources have enhanced my sim racing a hundred times over. Don Chapman P.S. Will Sim Racing News be reviewing CPR?

Sure. It is obvious that the person doing that review knows nothing about racing sims. Most of it was completely false and in no way represents the game that you actually purchase. OK the pictures in the review were real but that is about it :-) Don't know as it has never happened. What I am looking for is a truthful representation of the product. Anyone who has spent a couple of hours with the game knows full well how horrible it is. Even after the patch, I believe the oval races are still weak. And when the AI crashes, we still go 200MPH without slowing or yellows? What is that about? Setups without tire temps? Oh yes that is a 92% simulation! haha. That is nice. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

> Exactly *which* version of Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation is this person > using? > It can't be the same one that was foisted on the rest of the world > before Christmas, surely? Well Bruce, it's the one with the $1000 bribe in it. Funnily enough, by complete fluke only selected reviewers ended up with this version, heheheheheehe.

> The only reason I have made posts regarding these reviews, is > because of how misleading they are to the game buying public that > these sites supposedly serve. It frustrates me to see such unbalanced > reviews that are obviously wriiten more for Microsoft/TRI's benefit > than they are to inform me as a gamer. This bit hits the nail on the head. MS spent money advertising this game in many diverse ways :)

Quoted text (12 lines)

> After reading this post, this is a message I sent to the nobrainer who > wrote the review: > Just what copy of the game were you reviewing when you wrote this article? > You state there is not much more to ask for, how about yellow flags for > one? How about decent AI for seconds? How about being able to make a lap > without them taking you out of the race? And by the way, I have a P266 AGP > with a Riva 128 AND a Monster 3d connected, and the best frame rate I can > get is 30 fps, average is 20-25. And I greatly disagree: it is in fact > another pretty 3d accelerated face in the crowd. I suggest you look at the > rec.autos.simulators newsgroup, you will see I am not even close to being > the only one who feels this way! 92%? How about 42%.

92% aye? Now, 92% of $10,000 is $9200 dollars. Better than $4200 isn't it? <G>

% Pardon my intrusion to this fascinating thread, but isn't all that's % written in the article an expression of one's opinion? Some of % you may not like CPR, but if the guy likes it, so be it. If you found % a mag that wrote reviews that matched your own thoughts exactly, % wouldn't it be rather boring (George Orwell excepted)? Yeh, but.... If someone's opinion is that the earth is flat or that the sun and all other planet's and stars rotate around it... ?????? Okay, it's sort of a free world, so one is entitled to one's opinion. And I am not knocking anyone who like CPR, but at least realise that the world stopped being flat about 500 years ago (for most people). So, okay, let them like it, but at least be "realistic" about what you say about it. The AI CPR ain't round, they're flat! And the track and grandstands rotate around the AI, not the other way around! % >I don't often comment on other site's reviews, but I must admit % >this one is pretty funny! % Style and grammar aside, I make it a point -never- to comment on % another's review, period. % Cheers! % Marc 'L8BRKR' Nelson % Sim Racing News - USA % http://www.simproject.com/simnews % Sim Racing News - UK % http://sneezy.dcn.ed.ac.uk/simnews -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I think the point they're trying to make is not that this person is not entitled to his opinion. Just that He or She should get a Pulitzer Prize for FICTION!