Message-ID: <366A4EAB.D419F1E9@polymail.calpoly.edu>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 01:30:20 -0800
From: Grimfarrow <rphathan@polymail.calpoly.edu>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators
Subject: Re: PC Gamer Review of GPL, Rather unkind scores!
References: <74cdvj$g42@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.72.157.87
X-Trace: 6 Dec 1998 09:29:53 GMT, 166.72.157.87
Organization: IBM.NET
Lines: 20
X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!digex!btnet-peer!btnet!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsm.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!166.72.157.87
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.autos.simulators:62130



Jay J wrote:

> Just got the January edition of PC Gamer (one of the most comprehensive, and
> unbiased PC mag's on the market, IMO unlike the Ziff Davis rags that give
> biased reviews of products that advertise in their rag...)

Exactly how a magazine that was infamous for giving Outpost, Lords
of Magic and Ascendancy over 80% can be considered "unbiased" is
really beyond me.  At least CGW waits until they play the whole game
before reviewing it.  Also, PC Gamer has in the past "reviewed"
games which never even became released (like one Warhammer
strategy/action game which was scrapped at the last minute,
but was "Reviewed" by PC Gamer anyway).  Sorry, but the
magazine is pretty much crap.  And this "review" of
GPL is further evidence of its deterioration.

Grimfarrow

