F1 2013 Review

Show Topics In:
Posted 6:14pm on Mon 30 September 2013
VG_Staff
  • Posts: 28,122
00
F1 2013 Review
Quote:
An accomplished racer, but one that needs some competition to really move forward.

Read F1 2013 Review
Posted 6:14pm on Mon 30 September 2013
TheLastProphet
  • Posts: 22
03
In response to Topic
Quote:
An accomplished racer, but one that needs some competition to really move forward.

Read F1 2013 Review

» Go to VG_Staff's original post
This is by far the worst game review I have ever read.

It's a review of a driving game which contains one solitary sentence about how the cars handle.

No mention is made of the damage model, suspension/downforce physics etc whatsoever.

There is no mention of the framerate the game runs at - something very important to racing game fans.

There is no mention of the weather effects and if they have improved from previous iterations of the game.

The reviewer states the series needs some competition to force it to improve - something which is impossible as Codemasters have the exclusive licence to produce F1 games.

One of the biggest criticisms of the Codemasters F1 games is that they are always full of bugs and glitches at launch, something which is not mentioned or addressed at all.

Another major criticism is the series has never allowed players to race as their favourite F1 driver in the career mode - and you are forced to create a new driver starting his career in the weakest teams, making the first couple of seasons painful to play. Again whether or not this has been addressed is not even mentioned.

Nothing at all is mentioned about the multiplayer modes - how many players in a race, options to turn collisions off, modes available, lag, lobby system, etc - no mention of anything to do with the multiplayer/online side to game whatsoever. Why? How can someone review a racing game without even mentioning the multiplayer modes?

I understand that the reviewer feels that little has changed from F1 2012, but F1 2013 (and any game for that matter) still deserves a more thorough and professional review than this, which frankly reads like it was written on the back of a cigarette packet while waiting for a bus - written by someone who is clearly not a fan of F1 games or knowledgeable of racing games in general.
Posted 6:37pm on Mon 30 September 2013
yellowsapphire
  • Posts: 579
00
In response to Topic
Quote:
An accomplished racer, but one that needs some competition to really move forward.

Read F1 2013 Review

» Go to VG_Staff's original post
Whilst there are some who aren't fans of F1 who might pick this up, the trailers and promo give the impression they aren't marketing this game towards those to whom Eau Rouge sounds more like a perfume than the stuff of legend. (Which I think renders some of this review rather moot.)
Posted 7:51pm on Mon 30 September 2013
altaranga
  • Posts: 7,350
12
In response to TheLastProphet's
This is by far the worst game review I have ever read.

It's a review of a driving game which contains one solitary sentence about how the cars handle.

No mention is made of the damage model, suspension/downforce physics etc whatsoever.

There is no mention of the framerate the game runs at - something very important to racing game fans.

There is no mention of the weather effects and if they have improved from previous iterations of the game.

The reviewer states the series needs some competition to force it to improve - something which is impossible as Codemasters have the exclusive licence to produce F1 games.

One of the biggest criticisms of the Codemasters F1 games is that they are always full of bugs and glitches at launch, something which is not mentioned or addressed at all.

Another major criticism is the series has never allowed players to race as their favourite F1 driver in the career mode - and you are forced to create a new driver starting his career in the weakest teams, making the first couple of seasons painful to play. Again whether or not this has been addressed is not even mentioned.

Nothing at all is mentioned about the multiplayer modes - how many players in a race, options to turn collisions off, modes available, lag, lobby system, etc - no mention of anything to do with the multiplayer/online side to game whatsoever. Why? How can someone review a racing game without even mentioning the multiplayer modes?

I understand that the reviewer feels that little has changed from F1 2012, but F1 2013 (and any game for that matter) still deserves a more thorough and professional review than this, which frankly reads like it was written on the back of a cigarette packet while waiting for a bus - written by someone who is clearly not a fan of F1 games or knowledgeable of racing games in general.

» Go to TheLastProphet's original post
Thank-you for putting the time and effort into writing this.

Normally I'd just write something like "Your 300 word reviews suck". I don't bother explaining why because I don't think anyone at VG really cares. Perhaps the question should be Why do I care? I'm not really sure. What I do know is that I now spare myself the embarrassment of having to read this dross by seeking my Review opinions from other sites.
Posted 7:57pm on Mon 30 September 2013
Mintyrebel
  • Posts: 1,639
01
In response to altaranga's
Thank-you for putting the time and effort into writing this.

Normally I'd just write something like "Your 300 word reviews suck". I don't bother explaining why because I don't think anyone at VG really cares. Perhaps the question should be Why do I care? I'm not really sure. What I do know is that I now spare myself the embarrassment of having to read this dross by seeking my Review opinions from other sites.

» Go to altaranga's original post
inb4 your told not to use the forums again by staff because you stated your opinion...
Posted 10:19pm on Mon 30 September 2013
Slender_Man_co
  • Posts: 84
02
In response to Mintyrebel's
inb4 your told not to use the forums again by staff because you stated your opinion...

» Go to Mintyrebel's original post
When that suggestion was made the opinion he was expressing was that the staff of this site were boring and talentless. So I think it is reasonable to suggest at that point that another site might suit him better.

It's altaranga's right to come on here and post his sarcastic, aggressive and hyperbolic opinions. It's also my right to think he is a rude twat who isn't half as good a writer as he thinks he is.

Minty, you and the other guys who have been around a while and prefer the old direction at least make arguments that don't rely on petty insults directed at staff members who work very hard on the content of this site. That feedback at least can be taken on board, even if they continue to go in the direction they believe in. altaranga's points are presented with an unnecessary amount of venom that puts people offside and doesn't contribute in a positive way.

These are my opinions and I have really held myself back so far and I will go back to doing so after this post as I really don't like negativity and hate.
Posted 10:35pm on Mon 30 September 2013
pblive
  • Posts: 18,170
02
In response to Topic
Quote:
An accomplished racer, but one that needs some competition to really move forward.

Read F1 2013 Review

» Go to VG_Staff's original post
I believe it's just that the reviewers find it difficult to be chained to a rather strange convention that I've only ever seen in such high acclaimed editorial establishments like The Sun or The Daily Mail.

Why the limit? Surely just shortening the reviews without an arbitrary limit is a better solution? There's being concise and then there's being constrained.

I can't speak for Altaranga, but I feel strongly about this because I've been on this site long enough to build some sort of relationship with it (and I'm not even among those who've been here since the very early days). It's not about change, sites need that, it's about the logic of any changes and whether they benefit the site.
Posted 7:51am on Tue 1 October 2013
Mintyrebel
  • Posts: 1,639
00
In response to Slender_Man_co's
When that suggestion was made the opinion he was expressing was that the staff of this site were boring and talentless. So I think it is reasonable to suggest at that point that another site might suit him better.

It's altaranga's right to come on here and post his sarcastic, aggressive and hyperbolic opinions. It's also my right to think he is a rude twat who isn't half as good a writer as he thinks he is.

Minty, you and the other guys who have been around a while and prefer the old direction at least make arguments that don't rely on petty insults directed at staff members who work very hard on the content of this site. That feedback at least can be taken on board, even if they continue to go in the direction they believe in. altaranga's points are presented with an unnecessary amount of venom that puts people offside and doesn't contribute in a positive way.

These are my opinions and I have really held myself back so far and I will go back to doing so after this post as I really don't like negativity and hate.

» Go to Slender_Man_co's original post
I don't like negativity and hate although, if I recall correctly, his original post was in no way insulting. That being said I work in a corner shop, if a customer came up to me and rudely suggested that I change the way the milk fridge looked, do you think I could just tell him to go find another shop? I think my boss might get a bit annoyed over that. What I should do is politely explain why the milk fridge is that way and be as nice as possible to the customer until he buys his milk.

That being said I see your point, the second post was probably a little too far but then if I'd been told to leave the forums that I'd been on longer than most of the staff I'd probably be a bit annoyed too :P
Posted 7:53am on Tue 1 October 2013
Mintyrebel
  • Posts: 1,639
00
In response to pblive's
I believe it's just that the reviewers find it difficult to be chained to a rather strange convention that I've only ever seen in such high acclaimed editorial establishments like The Sun or The Daily Mail.

Why the limit? Surely just shortening the reviews without an arbitrary limit is a better solution? There's being concise and then there's being constrained.

I can't speak for Altaranga, but I feel strongly about this because I've been on this site long enough to build some sort of relationship with it (and I'm not even among those who've been here since the very early days). It's not about change, sites need that, it's about the logic of any changes and whether they benefit the site.

» Go to pblive's original post
I think the main issue is they want to do something different because oftentimes different = more clicks = more ad revenue and, based on the recent article about visitor numbers, it seems to be working. That doesn't mean I like the reviews, I think everybody here knows I don't, but looking at it from a VG side if it brings them more hits why would they listen to us and change it?
Posted 9:23am on Tue 1 October 2013
pblive
  • Posts: 18,170
01
In response to Mintyrebel's
I think the main issue is they want to do something different because oftentimes different = more clicks = more ad revenue and, based on the recent article about visitor numbers, it seems to be working. That doesn't mean I like the reviews, I think everybody here knows I don't, but looking at it from a VG side if it brings them more hits why would they listen to us and change it?

» Go to Mintyrebel's original post
In that case, why not just double the number of click baiting headlines and shorten reviews to 3 words to save time?

Job done.

But then that wouldn't be fair to those reviewers who want to get their thoughts across and I honestly believe 300 words is not enough to do the same, either. I don't mind shorter reviews, just as long as they are not short for the sake of it. If you've said all you are going to say then stop, by all means, but if you've got to the end of a word limit and still have more detail to add then there's something wrong with the system.
Show Topics In:
Quick Reply

Login or register to reply to this topic

Create a new account or login to take part in this topic discussion.
View Full Site