Btw, about the Avault GPL rating

I just wanted to say that the most realistic racing simulator ever made is ranking as high as Power F1 and Daytona USA Deluxe by Avault.com "Wow" are my words. What an ***. BOYCOTT AVAULT !!!! BE UNITED AS A SIMRACING COMMUNITY !!!!

Thanks for everyone who gave their advice on this problem. I ended up getting a different SLI cable and that solved the problem. The 2 cards work great in SLI now!! Ken http://gamepad.org

They've already been removed from my bookmark lists. -don "To race is to live, everything else is just waiting." - Rudi Caracciola

If you want to get together to boycott this site, you may find you want to burn history books and deport people who have different political and religeous views to you. Hell, the guy gave his well-considered thoughts about the game. Yes, he found it too hard but that is his right. Some people are going to have different opinions to you, and I think you should learn to live with that. Avault has been a source of scores of downloads for many of us and you are now trying to organise a boycott of the guy's site because of his view. Spare me, please. Paul > I just wanted to say that the most realistic racing simulator ever made is > ranking as high as Power F1 and Daytona USA Deluxe by Avault.com "Wow" are > my words. What an ***. > BOYCOTT AVAULT !!!! BE UNITED AS A SIMRACING COMMUNITY !!!!

At last, a voice of reason speaks......I logged on this morning to read about what's happening in the world of GPL and all I read are piles of vindictive posts regarding one persons review of the game. What does it matter if he doesn't enjoy it as much as you? Ignore it and move on.......life is too short to get so wound up about such a small thing..... Chill out people, please can we return to discussing the game now? Ta, Pete

At last, a voice of reason speaks......I logged on this morning to read about what's happening in the world of GPL and all I read are piles of vindictive posts regarding one persons review of the game. What does it matter if he doesn't enjoy it as much as you? Ignore it and move on.......life is too short to get so wound up about such a small thing..... Simply a poor review and inaccurate one means decreased sales. Decreased sales means less chance of seeing anything of such quality in the near future. Besides with the breakup of the team already after Nascar3 or ICR3 and possibly GP3 the future does not look bright. Games will tend toward the masses and start to look more and more like a Playstation game or N64 game ugh.

Quoted text (28 lines)

>At last, a voice of reason speaks......I logged on this morning to read >about what's happening in the world of GPL and all I read are piles of >vindictive posts regarding one persons review of the game. >What does it matter if he doesn't enjoy it as much as you? Ignore it and >move on.......life is too short to get so wound up about such a small >thing..... >Chill out people, please can we return to discussing the game now? >Ta, Pete >> If you want to get together to boycott this site, you may find you want >to burn >> history books and deport people who have different political and >religeous views >> to you. Hell, the guy gave his well-considered thoughts about the game. >Yes, he >> found it too hard but that is his right. Some people are going to have >different >> opinions to you, and I think you should learn to live with that. Avault >has been >> a source of scores of downloads for many of us and you are now trying to >> organise a boycott of the guy's site because of his view. Spare me, >please. >> Paul

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:55:00 +0000, Paul Jones >If you want to get together to boycott this site, you may find you want to burn >history books and deport people who have different political and religeous views >to you. You may live in a world where you agree with people or burn them, but others find themselves able to disagree without resorting to such black and white extremes. If a car magazine (general or otherwise) is given a Ferrari F355 to review they don't compare it with a family runabout and mark it down because of lack of shopping space and nowhere to put the dog. If they did we would think them buffoons. I see no difference between that and Avault's review. Cheers! John

I think the comment about burning history books etc was heavily laced with irony, which I admit is a tone that transmits poorly over the internet. Having said that I think the guy is entitled to his opinion and has the right to speak it without being flamed. If we start taking the stance that no one is allowed to criticise a sim, then this ng starts to lose its interest. I want to know peoples frank views on software. For every negative review of a sim there are usually several positives (except in F1'97's case) and we can are left to make up our own minds. GPL is a top chart-seller it's not going to be rocked off course by one or two bad reviews. If bad reviews destroyed sales then judging by the consensus view of F1'97 it should have bombed, but in reality we see they have found the $13m for Bernie's licence until 2000 and something and are in the process of releasing F1'98. Most press reviews of GPL have voiced an opinion that is very hard but have not affected sales nor attracted the amount of vitriol that this one has. When I read all the flames about it this morning I went to avault expecting a really crass review. The guy has clearly spent some time on the review, and though I differ with his conclusions, I cannot say that they are poorly supported. All I can say is that I disagree, just as I don't like peanut butter but my sister loves it. Neither of us are wrong. I think someone famous once said "I disagree with what you say, but I will die to defend your right to say it". Paul

Quoted text (19 lines)

> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:55:00 +0000, Paul Jones > >If you want to get together to boycott this site, you may find you want to burn > >history books and deport people who have different political and religeous views > >to you. > You may live in a world where you agree with people or burn them, but > others find themselves able to disagree without resorting to such > black and white extremes. > If a car magazine (general or otherwise) is given a Ferrari F355 to > review they don't compare it with a family runabout and mark it down > because of lack of shopping space and nowhere to put the dog. If they > did we would think them buffoons. I see no difference between that and > Avault's review. > Cheers! > John

Paul Jones wrote Of course, that's what you may think, but my vision about what I wrote is different... Consider that I guessed that 1500 people won't buy GPL because of the review. That's 1500x35$ for the product. Let me speculate that 10$ goes back to Papyrus, just a speculation but just think it's true... that's 1500x10$ of money that won't be spend on future racing simulators by Papyrus. Just because somebody took his situation and abused of power somehow. I mean, 15k$ isn't that big, but it's still money that can't be spend in the future. This is mostly why I was jaw-dropped by this review. As a SimRacing community, it _ALL_ affects us when such things happen. I just can't see the point of people being for the review. We should ALWAYS stick together and be "pro-SimRacing", especially with the incredible technical achievement that is GPL. In your opinion, you really think GPL should be leveled with PowerF1 ? That the currently most realistic racing simulator ever made is ranked 2 and a half stars by a powerful *** website ? - 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/ - "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."--

> What does it matter if he doesn't enjoy it as much as you? Ignore it and > move on.......life is too short to get so wound up about such a small > thing..... It's no small thing. We need to make an example of this reviewer so no one else will dare to not like GPL. Our very lives depend on it!! Trips

No need to boycott anyone, Avault has provided me with several years of pretty damn reliable reviews, and if they've raved about a game and I've bought it, 90% of the time I've been happy. I will say that Avault and some magazines for that matter are not always 'into' racing sims like we are and they tend to give games like Daytona USA (yikes!) much better reviews than they deserve. My Eagle needs new tires,,, after 5 races! Raevyn

If GPL fans want to boycott someone, start with Fry's Electronics, which not only has not been carrying GPL, but has NO mention of it in their computers. They don't know what it is, and they aren't getting it. And this is a MAJOR source of software here in central CA.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>No need to boycott anyone, >Avault has provided me with several years of pretty damn reliable >reviews, and if they've raved about a game and I've bought it, 90% of >the time I've been happy. I will say that Avault and some magazines >for that matter are not always 'into' racing sims like we are and they >tend to give games like Daytona USA (yikes!) much better reviews than >they deserve. >My Eagle needs new tires,,, after 5 races! >Raevyn

Randy Magruder http://members.home.com/rmagruder

I agree with you about the ranking, Fran?ois. F1'97 is ***y appalling even by arcade standards. It is the worst game I own, and I only own it out of a wierd obsession to collect every racing game or sim I can. I would give it half a star because I like Martin Brundell's commentary. GPL on the other hand is a fully fledged simulation with as complete physics and vehicle modelling as you can find anywhere outside NASA. Even in the graphics department where people often offer up F1'97 as "eye-candy", GPL outshines it in much the same way that the sun outshines a potato. So, from our standpoint to place the two on the same level is gross. But look at the game from a typical gamers point of view. GPL is horrendously difficult if you've never raced before. To get a half-decent lap time you have to understand when to brake, how to take all the different types of corner double apex, late-apex etc, speed scrubbing etc when many gamers don't even understand what the racing line is. And that's before the bonnet's been opened. If you're writing a review to a regular *** audience you should point out that GPL is a great simulation - which he does - but you are entitled to say how hard it is - which IMO he overstates, but that's his right. It's not an entry level sim and an entry level driver is going to struggle. Perhaps avault is not the place for a review of GPL, perhaps this reviewer is not the right person to do it, but that's not our call. What I object to is the vitriol that this guy has been exposed to. I believe passionately in free speech provided that no one is prejudgiced for reasons of birth - colour, country, creed, physical ability etc. I like my news to have all points of view. I read the article and didn't agree with his views, but he has the right to say what he says and that's far more important than $15,000 extra budget to Sierra which would probably go straight to the shareholders in dividends anyway. If the countless post on this review had been presented in a more sober and thoughtful manner, I wouldn't have got so angry - more persuasion and less passion is needed. Threatening to boycott avault if the guy isn't sacked is an apalling sentiment. I am reminded of the McCarthy era. Paul

Quoted text (44 lines)

> Paul Jones wrote > >I think the comment about burning history books etc was heavily laced with > irony, > >which I admit is a tone that transmits poorly over the internet. Having > said that I > >think the guy is entitled to his opinion and has the right to speak it > without being > >flamed. If we start taking the stance that no one is allowed to criticise a > sim, then > >this ng starts to lose its interest. I want to know peoples frank views on > software. > >For every negative review of a sim there are usually several positives > (except in > >F1'97's case) and we can are left to make up our own minds. GPL is a top > chart-seller > >it's not going to be rocked off course by one or two bad reviews. > Of course, that's what you may think, but my vision about what I wrote is > different... > Consider that I guessed that 1500 people won't buy GPL because of the > review. That's 1500x35$ for the product. Let me speculate that 10$ goes > back to Papyrus, just a speculation but just think it's true... that's > 1500x10$ of money that won't be spend on future racing simulators by > Papyrus. > Just because somebody took his situation and abused of power somehow. I > mean, 15k$ isn't that big, but it's still money that can't be spend in the > future. This is mostly why I was jaw-dropped by this review. As a > SimRacing community, it _ALL_ affects us when such things happen. I just > can't see the point of people being for the review. We should ALWAYS stick > together and be "pro-SimRacing", especially with the incredible technical > achievement that is GPL. > In your opinion, you really think GPL should be leveled with PowerF1 ? That > the currently most realistic racing simulator ever made is ranked 2 and a > half stars by a powerful *** website ? > - 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/ > - "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."--

>Avault has provided me with several years of pretty damn reliable >reviews, You're being sarcastic right? Right??? Avault has the worst reviews. Any old crappy dreck EA serves up gets 4.5 stars minimum, automatically. Then when a real quality game comes along they slam it. Joe

It was barely ironic. It was just a good point well made. It's his problem, not yours. >I think the comment about burning history books etc was heavily laced with irony, >which I admit is a tone that transmits poorly over the internet. Having said that I >think the guy is entitled to his opinion and has the right to speak it without being >flamed. If we start taking the stance that no one is allowed to criticise a sim, then >this ng starts to lose its interest. I want to know peoples frank views on software. >For every negative review of a sim there are usually several positives (except in >F1'97's case) and we can are left to make up our own minds. GPL is a top chart-seller >it's not going to be rocked off course by one or two bad reviews. If bad reviews >destroyed sales then judging by the consensus view of F1'97 it should have bombed, >but in reality we see they have found the $13m for Bernie's licence until 2000 and >something and are in the process of releasing F1'98. Most press reviews of GPL have >voiced an opinion that is very hard but have not affected sales nor attracted the >amount of vitriol that this one has. When I read all the flames about it this morning >I went to avault expecting a really crass review. The guy has clearly spent some time >on the review, and though I differ with his conclusions, I cannot say that they are >poorly supported. All I can say is that I disagree, just as I don't like peanut >butter but my sister loves it. Neither of us are wrong. I think someone famous once >said "I disagree with what you say, but I will die to defend your right to say it".

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Paul >> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:55:00 +0000, Paul Jones >> >If you want to get together to boycott this site, you may find you want

to burn >> >history books and deport people who have different political and religeous views

Quoted text (14 lines)

>> >to you. >> You may live in a world where you agree with people or burn them, but >> others find themselves able to disagree without resorting to such >> black and white extremes. >> If a car magazine (general or otherwise) is given a Ferrari F355 to >> review they don't compare it with a family runabout and mark it down >> because of lack of shopping space and nowhere to put the dog. If they >> did we would think them buffoons. I see no difference between that and >> Avault's review. >> Cheers! >> John

I agree with most of your comments, Paul. But as a reviewer, Craig did not follow the "rules" that a responsible reviewer would do (I'm not a reviewer myself, but read enough reviews of every type to know what should and shouldn't be included in a review.) Craig contradicted himself a few times. The review was proofread (a couple of spelling/grammar errors, and the fact that he had an entire paragraph in there which was devoted to Red Baron 2 <---- I'm referring to the "music/turned it off" part here). Craig (an "experienced sim racer") gives a BIASES opinion of GPL, in my opinion: even though he says acknowledges the fact that GPL is a sim, he reviews it with the mindset that it is not exactly his cup-of-tea because it doesn't match up to his "arcade" desires. What I found extremely offensive, was that he makes ASSUMPTIONS for the reader. Of course, he is entitled to his opinion, but when you publish a review, you have certain responsibilities that you owe the reader and the product. If it's crap.. tell them that you thought it was ***- tell them that you advise them to consider if they really want a "sim" or a "game" and then make the decision. (Remember that Craig DIDN'T know there was the "Four Wheel Drift" setup book included, btw). The two statements below are especially misleading and equally as damaging, as they give a very clear (misinformed) opinion: "I can still picture most people returning Grand Prix Legends a few days after they buy it." "Simulation fanatics will probably love this game -- I just don't think that anyone else with a lower level of enthusiasm will get much out of it." I chatted with many people that don't fit into the "sim racer" profile, but they saw the game, tried it, and fell in love with it. Sure, it was difficult, but that is what they love about it. Craig mentions "Gamers need some sort of encouragement that they are doing better; they don't need to be thrown into a complex driving model that is going to take weeks to get competent at." That's exactly what even the "gamer-converts" liked about GPL. The reward of putting in the effort is to be able to (at first) complete a lap without a spin!, and then to know that your lap times are improving. When you do that "perfect" lap and your heart is beating so hard you're almost going to have a coronary, your chair is drenched in sweat, and you've got white-knuckles from gripping the wheel so hard, THEN you have your reward. I hadn't even won a race until the other day, but every few days, I would make a new "best" lap, and even if I finished 10th, I was happy and e***d about what I'd just done. I just read his review again, and like I said the first time, Craig does make some good observations. But for all the reasons above and the other ones posted here in the group, the review gives an INACCURATE look at GPL (He didn't even mention GPL's great multiplayer component.. not even a word of it.) I suggested to Craig that he edit it to fix it up (his bias, mistakes, ommissions, and factual errors, etc), but he says he stands by it... Looking at the Avault's "Review Criteria": TWO-AND-A-HALF stars is "Needs Help".. 3-stars is "Average".. 3 1/2 is "Decent".. 4 is "Pretty Good".. 4 1/2 is "Most Impressive".. and 5 is "Incredible". Does Craig not say himself "Simulation fanatics will probably love this game", "...If you answered yes to those two questions, then Grand Prix Legends might be the game for you.", and "One thing that can't be denied is that this is a driving simulation like no other you have played before.". Based on that, and the following: "Don't pay too much attention to the scenery because your task is to guide this ill-tempered beast around the circuit without ending up in a horrible accident." (Then don't complain about the "flat" people and trees, etc) "The game has a veritable cornucopia of options with which it may be tailored." "Papyrus has done a bang-up job on getting the physics of these cars to be very accurate" "Other nice features include a very detailed and dynamic 'garage'.." "Grand Prix Legends is extremely easy to get up and running" ... you get the picture... GREAT product... (5 stars on the way??)... But wait!! Here's what he didn't like: - "scrunched up" view (it's called letterbox) - want decent setups provided (they are pretty decent, Craig!) - wants an easier learning curve so it is "fun to learn how to drive the car" - that's why Papyrus included the "trainer", "advanced trainer", braking help, throttle help, steering help, and shift-R. (Btw, Craig DIDN'T have the Four Wheel Drift setup guide with his "review" copy. Sorry to hear that, but as there IS one included with the game, I suggested to him that he EDIT the review to reflect that (..he's not planning on it). Based on these minor grumbles.. how the heck does the gave only deserve TWO-AND-A-HALF stars? ("needs help"). At WORST, he should have given it 4 stars ("pretty good") based on the info in his review (even from a "arcade" perspective), and perhaps even 4 1/2 stars ("Most Impressive" ) - minus his minor grumbles. And if he reviewed GPL with the word "sim" in his mind, bump those up by at least another 1/2 star. So what does Craig score for his review?? I'll be generous and give him 1 1/2 stars, but even that is an injustice - 2 1/2 stars is "needs help"!! doktorB http://webhome.idirect.com/~drbryan/gpl [address restored]

What can I say, doctorB, I agree with almost everything that you've said. There are many points in the Avault review that are poor. We know what a good game GPL is - he should of mentioned them. As you know, this is not what I take issue with. It's the reaction of some of the subscribers in this newsgroup that is my bugbear. I probably overreacted a little - I read the posts and the article over my morning cup of coffee and was astonished and angered by the degree of venom and intolerance expressed in these posts. I would hate to see anyone's job jeopardised by what basically comes down to his impression of the game. I liked your post particulary because it was everything that all those *** posts weren't - balanced, considered and even-handed. You evaluated what he said and, IMO, were correct in your assessment. GPL has been out for several weeks now even in the UK and most of the hardcopy press reviewed the game a few months ago. The average assessment was in the 80s which, IMO, undervalues the sim somewhat. One or two rogue reviews are not going to do much damage to a product already enjoying several weeks in the top 10 sales chart for UK PC games. Let's call an end to all this acrimony, and get on with matters simulation. I watched the Formula Nippon race from the Fuji circuit on telly last night - what a race! It should have been stopped - there was a typhoon blowing and the circuit was more like a lake. The lead changed hands countless times and needless to say half the field span off. These guys have some guts. Pushing to the ragged edge on an ice-rink is suicide.... Paul

Quoted text (105 lines)

> I agree with most of your comments, Paul. But as a reviewer, Craig did not > follow the "rules" that a responsible reviewer would do (I'm not a reviewer > myself, but read enough reviews of every type to know what should and > shouldn't be included in a review.) > Craig contradicted himself a few times. The review was proofread (a couple > of spelling/grammar errors, and the fact that he had an entire paragraph in > there which was devoted to Red Baron 2 <---- I'm referring to the > "music/turned it off" part here). Craig (an "experienced sim racer") gives a > BIASES opinion of GPL, in my opinion: even though he says acknowledges the > fact that GPL is a sim, he reviews it with the mindset that it is not > exactly his cup-of-tea because it doesn't match up to his "arcade" desires. > What I found extremely offensive, was that he makes ASSUMPTIONS for the > reader. Of course, he is entitled to his opinion, but when you publish a > review, you have certain responsibilities that you owe the reader and the > product. If it's crap.. tell them that you thought it was ***- tell them > that you advise them to consider if they really want a "sim" or a "game" and > then make the decision. (Remember that Craig DIDN'T know there was the "Four > Wheel Drift" setup book included, btw). The two statements below are > especially misleading and equally as damaging, as they give a very clear > (misinformed) opinion: > "I can still picture most people returning Grand Prix Legends > a few days after they buy it." > "Simulation fanatics will probably love this game -- I just don't > think that anyone else with a lower level of enthusiasm will get > much out of it." > I chatted with many people that don't fit into the "sim racer" profile, but > they saw the game, tried it, and fell in love with it. Sure, it was > difficult, but that is what they love about it. Craig mentions > "Gamers need some sort of encouragement that they are doing > better; they don't need to be thrown into a complex driving model > that is going to take weeks to get competent at." > That's exactly what even the "gamer-converts" liked about GPL. The reward of > putting in the effort is to be able to (at first) complete a lap without a > spin!, and then to know that your lap times are improving. When you do that > "perfect" lap and your heart is beating so hard you're almost going to have > a coronary, your chair is drenched in sweat, and you've got white-knuckles > from gripping the wheel so hard, THEN you have your reward. I hadn't even > won a race until the other day, but every few days, I would make a new > "best" lap, and even if I finished 10th, I was happy and e***d about what > I'd just done. > I just read his review again, and like I said the first time, Craig does > make some good observations. But for all the reasons above and the other > ones posted here in the group, the review gives an INACCURATE look at GPL > (He didn't even mention GPL's great multiplayer component.. not even a word > of it.) I suggested to Craig that he edit it to fix it up (his bias, > mistakes, ommissions, and factual errors, etc), but he says he stands by > it... > Looking at the Avault's "Review Criteria": > TWO-AND-A-HALF stars is "Needs Help".. > 3-stars is "Average".. > 3 1/2 is "Decent".. > 4 is "Pretty Good".. > 4 1/2 is "Most Impressive".. and > 5 is "Incredible". > Does Craig not say himself "Simulation fanatics will probably love this > game", "...If you answered yes to those two questions, then Grand Prix > Legends might be the game for you.", and "One thing that can't be denied is > that this is a driving simulation like no other you have played before.". > Based on that, and the following: > "Don't pay too much attention to the scenery because your task is to > guide this ill-tempered beast around the circuit without ending up in a > horrible accident." (Then don't complain about the "flat" people and trees, > etc) > "The game has a veritable cornucopia of options with which it may be > tailored." > "Papyrus has done a bang-up job on getting the physics of these cars to > be very accurate" > "Other nice features include a very detailed and dynamic 'garage'.." > "Grand Prix Legends is extremely easy to get up and running" > ... you get the picture... GREAT product... (5 stars on the way??)... But > wait!! > Here's what he didn't like: > - "scrunched up" view (it's called letterbox) > - want decent setups provided (they are pretty decent, Craig!) > - wants an easier learning curve so it is "fun to learn how to drive the > car" - that's why Papyrus included the "trainer", "advanced trainer", > braking help, throttle help, steering help, and shift-R. > (Btw, Craig DIDN'T have the Four Wheel Drift setup guide with his "review" > copy. Sorry to hear that, but as there IS one included with the game, I > suggested to him that he EDIT the review to reflect that (..he's not > planning on it). > Based on these minor grumbles.. how the heck does the gave only deserve > TWO-AND-A-HALF stars? ("needs help"). At WORST, he should have given it 4 > stars ("pretty good") based on the info in his review (even from a "arcade" > perspective), and perhaps even 4 1/2 stars ("Most Impressive" ) - minus his > minor grumbles. And if he reviewed GPL with the word "sim" in his mind, bump > those up by at least another 1/2 star. > So what does Craig score for his review?? I'll be generous and give him 1 > 1/2 stars, but even that is an injustice - 2 1/2 stars is "needs help"!! > doktorB > http://webhome.idirect.com/~drbryan/gpl [address restored]

Quoted text (9 lines)

> No need to boycott anyone, > Avault has provided me with several years of pretty damn reliable > reviews, and if they've raved about a game and I've bought it, 90% of > the time I've been happy. I will say that Avault and some magazines > for that matter are not always 'into' racing sims like we are and they > tend to give games like Daytona USA (yikes!) much better reviews than > they deserve. > My Eagle needs new tires,,, after 5 races!

I read the Avault review also. I love sim racing as much as the next guy. I think the review was accurate and to the point. Did they slam Papy unfairly? NO! They presented the facts. GPL is hard to learn and drive. GPL will steal hours of your time just to get half decent. I spent days driving the Lotus around Monza before turning a sub-1:30 lap. That is *one car* on *one track* out of the many. Lately, my daily tour includes sight-seeing the German mountainside at the "ring". I swear I thought I saw some cows grazing in those pastures. <g> I can see it taking months to get the "ring" down with a competitive lap time. But hey, I literally have the rest of my life to do it. The point is, GPL is not for the "casual gamer" who has an hour or so to play on the computer each day. Having said so, 2 1/2 stars is a praise. Rick ========================================================= "..I see no reason for people to disrupt their lives over this.....YET..." - US Gov't Y2K Czar John Koskinin on ABC NEWS Nightline (10/20/98)

I think you are missing the point here Paul. Craig's review was biased against GPL to the 3rd degree.... If what Craig wrote about GPL in his review, was posted in a news group as a, "this is my opinion of GPL" thread, then i wouldn't have a problem with it, because as you say, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but to submit this waffle as a review to a *** site where thousands of potential buyers may look at it and decide, "this is not for me", is misleading. His obvious arrogance in not making changes to the sections that were misleading is simply, "i am right, and the rest of the world is wrong". This is the problem most people are having with this review, and i use the word, "review", very lightly. As you said Paul, everyone is entitled to their opinions on different subjects, but when that opinion is published as a factual review that people world wide will be reading and believing, then factuality becomes more of a concern. If he made changes to correct his mistakes, a lot of anger would be dispersed. but he's to ***y arrogant and obviously immature to admit he was wrong on certain observations... Remember, it takes a man to apologise, or to admit when he was wrong. Craig obviously falls very shorty here! THIS IS MY OPINION. :-)) Cheers, Ron

Ron, I agree with most of what you say. The review was not favouable and the guy clearly found the game frustrating. I didn't sense any inherent animosity towards it but maybe I missed a trick. I also had no idea that a dialogue had been set up with him. I can only guess from what you say that agreement was not reached. I think the best way to get parts of the article changed is to adopt a concilitory approach. I would guess that quite a few insults have been hurled at the guy and he is probably***ing his wounds right now, and in no mood to back down. Gentle persuasion is usually a better weapon than all out warfare. If you call someone an arrogant shit then he won't do anything for you, if you say he's a great guy and could he do you a little favour and fix this, then he may well do it. What you actually think, you don't say, and everybody is happier. Paul

Quoted text (41 lines)

> I think you are missing the point here Paul. Craig's review was biased > against GPL to the 3rd degree.... > If what Craig wrote about GPL in his review, was posted in a news group > as a, "this is my opinion of GPL" thread, then i wouldn't have a > problem with it, because as you say, everyone is entitled to his/her > opinion, but to submit this waffle as a review to a *** site where > thousands of potential buyers may look at it and decide, "this is not > for me", is misleading. > His obvious arrogance in not making changes to the sections that were > misleading is simply, "i am right, and the rest of the world is wrong". > This is the problem most people are having with this review, and i use > the word, "review", very lightly. > As you said Paul, everyone is entitled to their opinions on different > subjects, but when that opinion is published as a factual review that > people world wide will be reading and believing, then factuality > becomes more of a concern. > If he made changes to correct his mistakes, a lot of anger would be > dispersed. but he's to ***y arrogant and obviously immature to admit > he was wrong on certain observations... > Remember, it takes a man to apologise, or to admit when he was wrong. > Craig obviously falls very shorty here! > THIS IS MY OPINION. :-)) > Cheers, > Ron > > If you want to get together to boycott this site, you may find you > want to burn > > history books and deport people who have different political and > religeous views > > to you. Hell, the guy gave his well-considered thoughts about the > game. Yes, he > > found it too hard but that is his right. Some people are going to > have different > > opinions to you, and I think you should learn to live with that. > Avault has been > > a source of scores of downloads for many of us and you are now trying > to > > organise a boycott of the guy's site because of his view. Spare me, > please. > > Paul

I now read this from your mail on another thread: : I missed this bit in his article when I read it - has it been changed? It's a bit of a giveaway I must say. Rather destroys his case. Paul

And now I find this at the top of the article: [Editor's Note: Due to the fact that we were missing a vital game manual when we reviewed Grand Prix Legends, and didn't realize it at the time, The Adrenaline Vault will be re-evaluating the game in the next few days based on this new information.] Paul

Quoted text (105 lines)

> I agree with most of your comments, Paul. But as a reviewer, Craig did not > follow the "rules" that a responsible reviewer would do (I'm not a reviewer > myself, but read enough reviews of every type to know what should and > shouldn't be included in a review.) > Craig contradicted himself a few times. The review was proofread (a couple > of spelling/grammar errors, and the fact that he had an entire paragraph in > there which was devoted to Red Baron 2 <---- I'm referring to the > "music/turned it off" part here). Craig (an "experienced sim racer") gives a > BIASES opinion of GPL, in my opinion: even though he says acknowledges the > fact that GPL is a sim, he reviews it with the mindset that it is not > exactly his cup-of-tea because it doesn't match up to his "arcade" desires. > What I found extremely offensive, was that he makes ASSUMPTIONS for the > reader. Of course, he is entitled to his opinion, but when you publish a > review, you have certain responsibilities that you owe the reader and the > product. If it's crap.. tell them that you thought it was ***- tell them > that you advise them to consider if they really want a "sim" or a "game" and > then make the decision. (Remember that Craig DIDN'T know there was the "Four > Wheel Drift" setup book included, btw). The two statements below are > especially misleading and equally as damaging, as they give a very clear > (misinformed) opinion: > "I can still picture most people returning Grand Prix Legends > a few days after they buy it." > "Simulation fanatics will probably love this game -- I just don't > think that anyone else with a lower level of enthusiasm will get > much out of it." > I chatted with many people that don't fit into the "sim racer" profile, but > they saw the game, tried it, and fell in love with it. Sure, it was > difficult, but that is what they love about it. Craig mentions > "Gamers need some sort of encouragement that they are doing > better; they don't need to be thrown into a complex driving model > that is going to take weeks to get competent at." > That's exactly what even the "gamer-converts" liked about GPL. The reward of > putting in the effort is to be able to (at first) complete a lap without a > spin!, and then to know that your lap times are improving. When you do that > "perfect" lap and your heart is beating so hard you're almost going to have > a coronary, your chair is drenched in sweat, and you've got white-knuckles > from gripping the wheel so hard, THEN you have your reward. I hadn't even > won a race until the other day, but every few days, I would make a new > "best" lap, and even if I finished 10th, I was happy and e***d about what > I'd just done. > I just read his review again, and like I said the first time, Craig does > make some good observations. But for all the reasons above and the other > ones posted here in the group, the review gives an INACCURATE look at GPL > (He didn't even mention GPL's great multiplayer component.. not even a word > of it.) I suggested to Craig that he edit it to fix it up (his bias, > mistakes, ommissions, and factual errors, etc), but he says he stands by > it... > Looking at the Avault's "Review Criteria": > TWO-AND-A-HALF stars is "Needs Help".. > 3-stars is "Average".. > 3 1/2 is "Decent".. > 4 is "Pretty Good".. > 4 1/2 is "Most Impressive".. and > 5 is "Incredible". > Does Craig not say himself "Simulation fanatics will probably love this > game", "...If you answered yes to those two questions, then Grand Prix > Legends might be the game for you.", and "One thing that can't be denied is > that this is a driving simulation like no other you have played before.". > Based on that, and the following: > "Don't pay too much attention to the scenery because your task is to > guide this ill-tempered beast around the circuit without ending up in a > horrible accident." (Then don't complain about the "flat" people and trees, > etc) > "The game has a veritable cornucopia of options with which it may be > tailored." > "Papyrus has done a bang-up job on getting the physics of these cars to > be very accurate" > "Other nice features include a very detailed and dynamic 'garage'.." > "Grand Prix Legends is extremely easy to get up and running" > ... you get the picture... GREAT product... (5 stars on the way??)... But > wait!! > Here's what he didn't like: > - "scrunched up" view (it's called letterbox) > - want decent setups provided (they are pretty decent, Craig!) > - wants an easier learning curve so it is "fun to learn how to drive the > car" - that's why Papyrus included the "trainer", "advanced trainer", > braking help, throttle help, steering help, and shift-R. > (Btw, Craig DIDN'T have the Four Wheel Drift setup guide with his "review" > copy. Sorry to hear that, but as there IS one included with the game, I > suggested to him that he EDIT the review to reflect that (..he's not > planning on it). > Based on these minor grumbles.. how the heck does the gave only deserve > TWO-AND-A-HALF stars? ("needs help"). At WORST, he should have given it 4 > stars ("pretty good") based on the info in his review (even from a "arcade" > perspective), and perhaps even 4 1/2 stars ("Most Impressive" ) - minus his > minor grumbles. And if he reviewed GPL with the word "sim" in his mind, bump > those up by at least another 1/2 star. > So what does Craig score for his review?? I'll be generous and give him 1 > 1/2 stars, but even that is an injustice - 2 1/2 stars is "needs help"!! > doktorB > http://webhome.idirect.com/~drbryan/gpl [address restored]

I found this at the top of Craig Miller's review: [Editor's Note: Due to the fact that we were missing a vital game manual when we reviewed Grand Prix Legends, and didn't realize it at the time, The Adrenaline Vault will be re-evaluating the game in the next few days based on this new information.] So maybe all's well the end well - but what will the final review contain? Paul

This takes me back to the so called "review" of GP2 in UK PCGamer... The game was reviewed and surprise surprise, 95% and blah blah "amazing" "difinitive" etc..etc.. The review of course was supposed to be out a few weeks before the game, yet the game was held back another few months.. In that review, there were some absurd comments such as "on a P90 the fast SVGA card..." It is my feeling that Microprose must have dictated most of this, telling the reviewer that it would be like that on release. My point? If you're missing it: I think GPL has nothing to worry about. It is a fine product that has been given one poor review. GP2 on the other hand was a poor product in terms of CPU load (at least IMO) but was reviewed with just a little hyperbole. As a sim-racer, I have bought both and GP2 is the one that almost found the window. It's a *** website and has been given a gamers review. I don't really see the problem. I think this links back nicely to the very well thought out post, posted here awhile back entitled "will GPL sell?" The person made some great points about the "average Joe". I think the state of this newsgroup of late shows that our "Joe Av" is getting some good points from somewhere. This is how I would split the general Pc owning public and GPL's Market: Sim-fanatics (say 98% of these, the people that make up your "community", of which have a strong online presence here or other forums, + the 2% who are not actively into the Internet but know others that are or have many friends of the same *** inclination) - These people are going to rush (out) to d/load the demo and buy the thing full price the minute it's shipped, of anything with Papyrus slapped on it. Racing Fans (like racing games/sims of any type equally or may lean to a certain variety) - Likely to buy GPL based on previous Papy games, views on on-line forums and maybe web/magazine reviews. Gamers (may like the racing genre best, but split their PC time between various games from action/RPG genres. May enjoy playing racing purely for spills and thrills) - Might buy GPL due to screen shots on box and in web reviews and magazines. So using this as I hope a fairly good guide, (it may be utter tit) I'd like to know exactly where Papy is going to be losing out BY THIS ONE REVIEW. It sure doesn't affect me in the way it does you... So what exactly are you worried about?? My only concern is that we may lose some potential sim racers, who are going to forego buying GPL because of one review... Urm, are we better off without them?? I feel that in all honesty 1500 is a steep number.. Maybe 1450 of these decide to seek another opinion?? Still, I do think that you are in principle correct, and that the review isn't "fair" not helped by the twoddle about Menu Music. Let's hope the review gets amended, but BOYCOTTING WITH CAPS ON, C'mon... Thanks, -:[link lost in import]

Here's something amusing I just realized: Craig Miller wrote the following in his review of GPL at the Avault. "Graphics: (2 1/2 stars) The graphics are good as far as these types of games go, but they give no sense of awe or wonder .. In addition, many of the objects on the track look cheesy. If I see one more "flat" person or tree I am going to scream!" Now consider this: North Americans: Look on the cover of the GPL box. To the right of the flap (in yellow type): "The graphics in Grand Prix Legends are simply some of the best ever in a racing simulation." - Adrenaline Vault Hmm... wonder who wrote that? Definitely wasn't Craig Miller, was it? That one gave me a good laugh. Wish I'd noticed that when I emailed them at the Avault. Hahahahahaha! Glad to see that they are going to be "re-evaluating" the product now that it has come to their attention that they were missing the Setup manual. There you go... make your voice known, and things CAN get changed. Lets wait and see what the "revised" review says. Can't wait! doktorB http://webhome.idirect.com/~drbryan/gpl -- Exclusive offer: PDPI L4 Digital Gamecard ONLY $80.95 US with Passwords on my site Get rid of Jitters & poor framerates today! --

Craig claims that that passage was mistakenly put in there from another review he was writing for Red Baron 2. So it was a "mistake" that it was in there, and he has since "edited" it out. (Trust me, I wasn't making it up.. I cut-&-pasted the quote from the review!) As I've said before, he should have the article PROOF-READ before submitting it (get someone else to read it too..), and whoever is in charge of the Avault reviews should also read all material submitted to them for publication so that things like this don't get put up on their pages. I'll accept his excuse.. but I have to laugh as I ask the question: HOW did the text mistakenly make it's way INTO HIS GPL review? What was he doing? Cutting & Pasting?.. Who knows? doktorB http://webhome.idirect.com/~drbryan/gpl -- Exclusive offer: PDPI L4 Digital Gamecard ONLY $80.95 US with Passwords on my site Get rid of Jitters & poor framerates today! --

>My point? If you're missing it: I think GPL has nothing to worry >about. - Lost revenue : However many people don't buy GPL is money lost to Papyrus and future products. - Consistency : GPL is of equivalent quality, in Avault terms, to PowerF1 and Daytona USA? Really? - Principle : It's easy to let it pass, but IMO *** sites and *** magazines are utter trash these days, poorly thought out reviews, desperately trying to be trendy and to pander to the whims of the advertisers....whose products they are reviewing. If someone gets it wrong for whatever reason it could be argued that is their right, but it is also our right to let them know we disagree and will not give them our custom in future. Cheers! John

>- Lost revenue : However many people don't buy GPL is money lost to >Papyrus and future products. ..which will be neglible due to Avault IMO. To a gamer? Quite possibly. Nice graphics and great crashes. GPL is the most realistic peice of software physics produced to date. It is placed on a shelf labeled "games", in a computer game box. It is reviewed by a ***** web site as a *game*, by a bloke who expects to keep the right pedal down 90% of the time, waggle the wheel here and there and come in 1st, 1st, 1st. GPL doesn't do this, 2.5 stars. Big deal!!! I think Papy took a big decision, or maybe risk, in producing such a pure, raw, sim without any real kind of arcade variation. Of course I would have been heavily disappointed if they had, but N2 had one and most of us ignored it and never even tried it! Papy has the trouble of being in a genre where traditionally, motor vehicles simulations have gone from being next to impossible to where GPL is, in a very short period of time. Apart from Papy, the genre has largely been built to be regarded as the worst example of companies rushing out crappy driving models as long as they are surrounded in the most luscious textures, colours etc.. possible. Therefore, there is *no way* GPL can sit on the shelf with the words "most realistic driving model ever" and be truly believed by these same people who supposedly won't buy GPL just because of Avault. I think Papy are laughing with joy as there is no real reason why GPL should be accepted by any kind of _***_ press.. Thanks, -:[link lost in import]

>I found this at the top of Craig Miller's review: >[Editor's Note: Due to the fact that we were missing a vital game manual >when we reviewed Grand Prix Legends, and didn't realize it at the time, >The Adrenaline Vault will be re-evaluating the game in the next few days >based on this new information.] This is a cop out. Granted there are a lot of people who disagree with The Adrenaline Vault's review of GPL; but then it's only one man's view. Does that reviewer review as he sees it-- no matter who may or may not disagree-- or does the reviewer write about what others want to hear? Are all of these reviewing houses supposed to reflect popular opinion or are they supposed to reflect their own thoughts and feelings about a game? To me it is a complete travesty for a reviewing house to take off a review and rewrite it just because a lot of people don't agree with it. I know; it's happened to me. Alanb

I have read every thread in r.a.s regarding the Avault Grand Prix Legends review, and the majority of them are "balanced, considered, and even-handed." Even the harsher ones point more directly at Avault and not the original reviewer. But that is his job! At least according to the Avault bios section([link lost in import] Playing Games, Reviewing and Previewing them. Analogy: If the users that my department supports at work are unhappy because I have not provided what they consider quality work, I expect to hear about it. Some will be professional with their feedback,whereas others may be crass, such is life. We are the "customers" in this case and have just as much right to complain to Avault or vent in this newsgroup. I have no want for Craig Miller to change his review. I would rather see Avault provide a more comprehensive review that includes ratings of the AI, multiplayer, graphics at multiple resolutions, etc. Virtually every GPL review section knocked the game for being too hard, this does not provide for a fair review. Basically, I would like to see some consistency in Avault's reviews of similar products. That is Avault's responsibility as a *** site, or should be if they wish to keep me coming to their site as a customer. There should not be such discrepancy between GPL(2 1/2 stars)([link lost in import] and CART Precision Racing(4 1/2 stars)([link lost in import] on the same site, even if it is different reviewers. The CPR review mentions high hardware requirement, sluggish frame rate and pop-up but gets 5 stars for graphics, whereas the GPL review mentions these same issues but gets 2 1/2 stars. The GPL review mentions slick easy-to-use interface but gets 3 stars for the Interface section, whereas CPR gets a perfect 5 stars. GPL seems to be knocked in this case for no Force Feedback support. Is that really part of interface? If so, the original unpatched CPR also had a huge problem with steering wheel configurations and null zone sensitivity, but no mention of it or detraction on points here. Then there is this quote from the Gameplay section: "The perfectly modeled physics are truly something to experience. You can almost feel the response of your car as it races over bumps, skids around corners, and jostles into walls or other cars." Think this is about GPL? Nope, CPR, but even though anyone can safely say the exact same things about GPL, CPR gets 5 stars for Gameplay, whereas GPL gets 2 1/2. According to the GPL review this is completely because the game is too hard. Sound FX is next with the following quote: "powerful sounds perfectly emulate the roar of engines, the whoosh of passing cars, and the screeching of tires, and help create a sense that the player is at the wheel of a mighty vehicle. " Again, this quote is about CPR, but I don't think that it is opinion that GPL provides at least that same experience, if not more. However, CPR gets 4 1/2 stars for Sound FX, while GPL gets 2 1/2 stars and the following quote: "the sounds as you are driving don't do much to add to the realism of the game. You can hear cars coming up from behind you but only in a muffled way, though this may be appropriate because of the noise of your car and the fact that you are wearing a helmet. Other than that almost no sound cues exist except for the occasional squeal of tires as you spin out for the Nth time. " Huh? The sounds don't do much to add to the realism of the game? Which sounds do not add to the realism? What sounds are missing? What sounds are not realistic? Please explain! Once again, it appears by the "tire squeal" comment that the reviewer is knocking GPL for just being too hard, and doing so in the Sound FX section. Is this fair? CPR had canned shifting sounds, listen to the shifting in GPL. There is no comparison. Then comes the Intelligence and Difficulty section, which is really the only section that should get knocked for the fact that GPL is hard. GPL gets 2 1/2 stars with no mention of the trainer and driving aid options, and absolutely no mention of the incredible AI. The CPR review says some debatable positive comments about that games AI, especially since this review was of the AI flawed, unpatched product, but then mentions the following: "Once I nailed down the controls and physics of driving, I was rarely out of contention for the lead, even when starting in last place. During long stretches of straight track, the player can easily blow past other drivers. The most ingenious AI in games can't beat a faster car. According to the racing results screen, it was not uncommon for my car to have had an average speed of 20 mph or better over cars placing second and third place. While this blunderous oversight makes success much easier than one would expect in a real race, it diminishes the satisfaction of victory. It would have been more gratifying to slowly succeed by adopting more methodical approach, but the game literally allows you to blast into first place right from the starting line. " Essentially explaining that the game is way too easy, which it was, but yet CPR gets a 4 star rating for this section, while GPL gets 2 1/2 stars for being too hard, with no mention of the AI performance!!! This makes no sense. I guess if a game is too easy, give it a great rating, whereas if a game is too hard, slam it. Which one gives the more satisfying challenge and longer lasting appeal? And the most amazing thing to me, is the fact that the US GPL Box(pointed out earlier by doktorB) contains the following quote from the Avault GPL preview back in Feb. 1998([link lost in import] "The graphics in Grand Prix Legends are simply some of the best ever seen in a racing simulation." But Avault's GPL review gives the graphics 2 1/2 stars. How inconsistent is that? Again, I know this is different people with different opinions, but Avault as a site should be consistent, or at least explain their inconsistencies. If you have read any of the posts that contain Craig Miller's responses regarding this issue, he is very condescending to those that disagree with him. Your own letter from him seems to point that out: Quote: "What is it with you people on the newsgroups that makes you think that just because I have a different opinion than you that I am: 1; an evil bastard, 2; an immature arcade freak, or 3; I deserve to be tortured until I confess my malicious intent?" If you really read through all the r.a.s posts, they contain much more valid, mature, justified arguments than malicious ones. I weed out the ones that have personal attacks and I hope Craig can do the same. I would just like to hear Craig's or Avault's answers to the legitimate complaints. Besides, to quote one of my childhood heroes: "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it Craig" :) Don Chapman

While I tend to agree with you in regards to popular opinion, I don't think that this is necessarily what may be happening. It may be more that the review doesn't adequately reflect the final released product. I don't for a minute think that the reviewer will change what he has to say about the level of difficulty in regards to the driving/physics model: if he likes arcade games and dislikes *** sims this will still be portrayed is a subsequent review. He may still tell recommend that many should stay away from the sim because they will find it too frustrating. However, he should (hopefully!) clean up comments about his experience that any and every new purchaser of the game certainly will not share i.e. inclusion of a manual and references to music. In fact, I think that it is professional of the reviewing house to pull an article that is clearly erroneous... the article is not being reviewed/edited because of a question of opinion, but as a result of inadequate research and blatant factual errors (naturally, the editor of the web-zine also has to consider the competence of the reviewer). A magazine or newspaper would print either a retraction or notice of error in a subsequent edition... the web doesn't work like that :). Rather, the article is pulled and replaced. Just my thoughts on the subject... hopefully this thread will die out soon! :) [Not that I am helping any, lol!] Cheers, Gian Vitzthum (remove "*no-spam*" from address to reply) <snip>

Quoted text (12 lines)

> To me it is a complete travesty for a reviewing house to take off a review > and rewrite it just because a lot of people don't agree with it. > I know; it's happened to me. > >I found this at the top of Craig Miller's review: > >[Editor's Note: Due to the fact that we were missing a vital game manual > >when we reviewed Grand Prix Legends, and didn't realize it at the time, > >The Adrenaline Vault will be re-evaluating the game in the next few days > >based on this new information.]

On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 19:58:51 -0500, "Alan Bernardo"

Quoted text (9 lines)

>This is a cop out. Granted there are a lot of people who disagree with The >Adrenaline Vault's review of GPL; but then it's only one man's view. Does >that reviewer review as he sees it-- no matter who may or may not disagree-- >or does the reviewer write about what others want to hear? Are all of these >reviewing houses supposed to reflect popular opinion or are they supposed to >reflect their own thoughts and feelings about a game? >To me it is a complete travesty for a reviewing house to take off a review >and rewrite it just because a lot of people don't agree with it.

I don't think its merely a matter of opinion, or only people disagreeing with the opinions expressed in the review. Consider these points: * the "cover story" - that they didn't have "Four Wheel Drift" and thus the review was incomplete. * the "music" issue - indicating at least sloppiness or downright incorrect reporting. * the lack of *any* mention of online play - again, incomplete reporting. * AVault's own policy (quoted in another thread) is to judge a game on what it attempts to do, not fault it for what it doesn't do - Papyrus aimed to create the most accurate and challenging racing sim to date, which most would agree they have done. How does that square with the 2 1/2 of 5 stars rating? If they were cranking out the latest arcade racer, sure, "being too difficult" would be a valid complaint and might justify such a rating. But how do you fault an accurate simulation for being "too real" (ie: too hard)? Sure, people disagreed with it, but I think it was largely on a factual basis, not mere opinions. NAR Northeast Regional Contest Board site - points and more...

>>- Lost revenue : However many people don't buy GPL is money lost to >>Papyrus and future products. >..which will be neglible due to Avault IMO. I'm not sure why you bother to repeat that when you already know I disagree. In any case I object on point of principle as much as from the level of financial loss. Seriously?! Jon, this is Power-F1 and Daytona USA we're talking about. Have you ever played either of these? For more than the time it takes to quit out and press your recycle bin into service? Do me a favour! So you think such a person is suitably qualified to carry out an objective review of such a product, making suitable comparisons with SODA, X-CAR, CPR etc, all of which scored highly? No, I thought not. They took the same risk with SODA which scored more highly, and Bethesda took the same risk with X-CAR which also somehow scored highly despite being abysmal in every aspect when compared to GPL. Confused? You should be. You don't put three years into a project and laugh when someone hurts sales or fails in putting together a simple review of your last three years. I know you see it as minimal and yes it could well be. The fact is that shutting up about it helps no-one. It loses Papyrus that "minimal" level of sales and Avault's reviewing quality slips another couple of rungs down the ladder. A chef in one of Edinburgh's restaurant's used to say to diners after their meal "please don't tell me it was nice - I can learn nothing from nice". No coincidence that the food there was incredible. This is not an exercise in slamming Avault, it's an exercise in demonstrating dissatisfaction. Avault can take it on board and improve (in my eyes at least) or decide it's irrelevant and continue on their current course. Shutting up offers only the latter option, and they can do nothing with that. Cheers! John

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>>- Lost revenue : However many people don't buy GPL is money lost to >>>Papyrus and future products. >>..which will be neglible due to Avault IMO. >I'm not sure why you bother to repeat that when you already know I >disagree. In any case I object on point of principle as much as from >the level of financial loss.

I apologise for repeating that, John. I know people that seriously will play GPL less than they have played Daytona. I'm sorry that you know of no such gamers. But between the people I know, GPL would be the one going in the re-cyc, and I am the strange person that has one game as a hobby, and not every (race) game under the sun as a hobby. Our idea of quality is one thing, other people's can be completely the opposite. From what I can figure, something that takes minutes to learn but a few weeks to "complete". They just can't plain understand the reward and accomplishment feel I get lapping oval tracks or spending the time getting to grips with GPL. I therefore can't help but have the views I do. I agree that the score should be changed, and that GPL should never have been marked down (regardless of what it is now "on par" with) for being what it sets out to be. But the bulk of the review text is undoubtably, spot on. I think you made a very good analogy with the Ferrari car and a magazine road test.. We'd call them fools if they marked it down because of lack boot space, but I certainly wouldn't go ape if they pointed out things like that, no room for the dog, ***mpg, insurance etc etc if the magazine was aimed at the average motorist. Another angle to this analogy is to *why* they would review it in the first place... I really admire your passion for this product that you have obviously worked very close to for so long, and I am I hope a true/loyal fan of Papyrus who appreciates their work as much as anyone. I just can't take the review to heart, much less be humiliated by it, because there is so much truth in it. Regardless of whether he became biased towards things like the graphics out of frustration, his views near enough tally with what many people I know have said about GPL. I'd just _hope_ my friends, if placed in the reviewers chair, would appreciate the work involved and conclude much like this "there's the most amazing driving model ever created in here, if you have the time, passion or skill to wrestle it under your control. Otherwise for the rest of us, there's a few weeks worth of spectacular accidents with the beautiful graphics. 4/5". Again, this is a best case scenario, if they thought it right to score it down because of the driving model than so beit.. I'd accept that it would represent many many gamers. I also apologise for most of my last post. I try my best to get my point across without causing friction, and it wasn't meant to demean you or Papy or anything... Thanks! -:[link lost in import]

>I know people that seriously will play GPL less than they have played >Daytona. I'm sorry that you know of no such gamers. I know of plenty people who would rather mess with an Excel spreadsheet than play GPL but is that relevant? Would compromising GPL to appeal to the Daytona USA fans (with the inevitable reduction in overall sim quality) have brought more sales? Possibly. Would it have been appropriate to the target market? Probably not. Would it have been in keeping with Papyrus' direction and intention for the product? I'd guess not a chance in hell. The only way you'd get me to play Flight Sim 98 would be if you coded an easy-landing feature, allowed me to bomb cars on the roads below and fly past office windows mooning people - that's what I want to do in a Cessna. Probably wouldn't add to the product for the intended market though. As far as reviews are concerned they should be marked BY the intended market (or an expert thereof) and FOR the intended market. Reviewing Chessmaster 2000 by a Quake fan isn't going to work and the line must be drawn somewhere. Your friends are obviously not fans. Why make a factually questionable review by a non-fan and non-expert saying "This is shit but might be okay if you're a total nut and into that sort of thing" when it's far better to make a detailed review by an expert saying "This is a milestone of the genre, but be careful if you're looking for arcade fun"? The former gets across a very negative impression to arcade and a mixed message to fans, while the latter gives accurate info to both - surely the purpose of a review? Cheers! John