Malcolm Owen On October 11, 2002 at 5:44 pm

Starting off this first ever Mailbag, we have some hatemail.
Please note, that this is exactly as I recieved it, and I can only wonder what sort of mentality this person has…

From: Macca
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 1:10 PM
Subject: ut 2003 review

first off …….bad review now way ever aspect of the game deserves a 10 …..comon sound 10 / what do u actully hear that announcer and go"omfg he sounds so mad"?

have u been playing doom 1 all these years????if i came stragiht from doom1 to this game year it deserves 10’s but comeon

No game ever can get 100% Perfect .there are always flaws.

you are reveiwing the game ,which means testing it ,not having a go and saying geeze i had so much fun that means 10’s all round……….

this game has so many flaws its not funny (although better than sum games bugs lists)

There is so much shit missing , and stuff that was there to hype up the game and not inclucded with the game.

whats new in this game ??? not innovative at all

what about the double jump n shit u ask? pfffft and the karam phyics really arnnt that great , the bodies seem to go in slow-mo when dying in air…..and the deaths always seem to look the same limp body to lying on ground.

bleh my complaints list goes on.

Next time review a game, (TEST THE GAME)dont just say YAY! i had fun on that 10 minute go 10’s all round.

u look like u have been bribed.



Where shall we start?

1. It is only a bad review in your opinion. It’s a free world. We can make our own decisions, express our own opinions. You have expressed your opinion much like I expressed mine within the review itself.
2. I like the announcer. Many people do not. But the total sound mark is not based upon someone’s ability to shout "MOOONSTER KILL!!!" at the top of their voice.There are explosions, weapons firing, yells of death, and of course music. Since I couldn’t find fault in any aspect of the sound production, it got a 10.
3. If I were playing Doom 1 all these years, then I wouldn’t have had the need to upgrade, I would have been on a 486 still, and would never have made it past the installation program that UT2003 uses.
4. Games almost always has flaws of some kind. But there is always a chance that a game comes out with absolutely perfect code, and has no problems at all, ever. It may be unlikely, but it is possible. There ARE problems with the game (technical based), but since none of these appeared on BOTH test systems here, I didn’t take them into account.
5. "Testing" the game takes place in the development process, to check that many bugs and problems are found and fixed before the product goes on the market. "Reviewing" the game is to see how one person (the reviewer) likes the game. You cannot review a game without enjoyment, as a game that is technically perfect may not be enjoyable at all. Example – Hearts (Game that comes with Windows) does not have any technical issues at all, but it may not be as enjoyable as a bug-ridden, technically imperfect game.
6. A review is based on what is actually IN the game, not what is forgotten or left out.
7. I didn’t say that it was innovative. I didn’t say it was "new". I detailed the changes, and commented about them, that’s all. If you look back at the games industry successes, you will see that game after game after game looking the same in terms of basic gameplay. What you suggest is that all games of a similar type should be reviewed badly purely because the ideas are taken from elsewhere. On this basis, Half Life, Quake 3 Arena, Unreal Tournament, Quake 1, and even Doom would be reviewed badly, because the all copy Wolfenstein. A game can copy features from elsewhere as much as possible, but it is the execution of those ideas that you should look for, not what ideas are there.
8. I didn’t ask about the double jumping and (as you say) "shit". I didn’t go over the ragdoll physics either. It’s because they are minor details in a big game. For that matter, I didn’t go on about the Adrenaline meter, the fact it came on 3 CDs, or even the Epileptic Seizures warning at the start of the instruction manual.
9. I have not been bribed. I have never got "freebies" from anyone. I actually went into the shop to buy the game for that matter. You want to know about bribery? Fine
In order to be bribed, a site needs to prove to the games industry that they are major players, and that people listen to them. Then, and only then, do publishers and developers start treating the sites as royalty. AND, to top it all off, many reviewers cannot be bribed that easily. A free game does not cut it for me, but I can be bribed. My prices?
Free Game/Hardware – I will look at your game. No guarantee that I will review it at all
Free Stuff to the value of £500 – I will review said game or hardware. It is up to me whether I give it a good review or not.
Free Cars, Fine Women, Tons of Cash, House in Miami, Financial Security for the rest of my Life – I will guarantee the review score to be higher than 3/10
10. I suppose this e-mail was to show how "stupid" I apparently am. Yet, this same e-mail appears to be hastily written, with no regard to spelling, grammar, nor proper word usage. Try learning a language, preferably English next time.

From: DesertDiamond
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 12:31 AM
Subject: I’m glad I stumbled onto your site

I did buy The Italian Job at EB but unfortunately before I read the review. The game must use the same engine as Test Drive 6, it has the same look and feel only it’s not as good. Great site, you’re in my favorites so I’ll visit often.

Thanks for your mail. Nice to have a compliment from a reader.
Unfortunately I do not know what the engine is called, or where it is from.

Send your comments, queries, insults and abuse to and it will be seen to ASAP….

Comments are closed.