rec.autos.simulators

NFS2 PC --Just got it. Mildly disappointed.

JonTurn

NFS2 PC --Just got it. Mildly disappointed.

by JonTurn » Tue, 29 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Greetings.

I *ABSOLUTELY LOVED* NFS1. It is a GREAT game and I've probably spent a
hundred hours "behind the wheel", so when I spotted Need For Speed 2 (PC
Version) this weekend at Sam's Club Discount Warehouse, I e***dly
shelled out the $42.95. I've now spent several hours playing the game.
Following is my opinion:

Nice intro video of a Cala and a Jaguar XJ220 racing thru the UK
countryside. The video leads to an attractive shell. Plenty of eye candy
but it requires a few extra clicks and keypresses to navigate compared to
NFS1. So far, so good.

After a few clicks, I've selected a track, the Proving Grounds, chosen a
car (the venerable F50) and cranked up the graphics detail. I click
"RACE". Now what? In a word -- "disappointment!" The framerate is
terrible, probably not more than 12 frames/sec. on my Micron P133 with
64MB RAM,  Diamond Stealth 64 Video 2001 4MB PCI video. NFS2 is clearly,
substantially slower than NFS1. So much for Direct X (Microsoft's Windoze
game development library designed to replace DOS) -- I can't run a full
size window with high-level graphics and maintain a reasonable frame rate.
So I hit Escape, go to Options and change to medium-detail graphics and
turn off the horizon to get the same framerates as NFS1 on my 486-120 with
full screen/detail/horizon, etc!!! Now the game looks lousy, but at least
it's playable.

So I jump back into the game. The camera pans around the Ford GT90 I've
selected and moves into the***pit. Cool. But wait! Since I've chosen a
medium-size window (in order to get a decent framerate), I no longer get a
***pit view! Sheesh. I run a few laps around the boring oval known as the
Proving Grounds and decide to move on to a more interesting track. Back to
the shell.

I cycled thru the various tracks and cars, playing each for approx. half
an hour and I must say that I am underwhelmed with the tracks. The
background music is at first interesting, but after a few moments
annoying, and the level of detail on most of the tracks is concentrated in
just one or two areas -- usually a cluster of buildings in a city
separated by long stretches of very ugly tunnels or tree-lined highway.
One additional point about the tracks -- they're all ovals, all a little
boring. If you (like me) enjoyed the long top-speed straightaway race
along NFS1's "Coastal" or "City" tracks, you're really going to miss them
in NFS2.

I've not had a chance to play multiplayer, I've not yet attempted to
customize the vehicles (change brake bias, downforce, etc.), and perhaps
it's just a matter of time before I get used to running in a reduced
graphics mode, but so far I'm disappointed. It's not that its a bad game,
its just not much better than NFS1, and some of the things I liked about
NFS1 (e.g. the long, segmented tracks, the fast framerate) are lost.
Perhaps the best parts of the game lie in the multiplayer, and if that's
the case I hope to be surprised.

PROS:
Attractive interface. Music is great. Improved camera angles (you can see
backwards on the track...). Networked gameplay! Multimedia showcase is
slick! The angular effects of the physics engine has been refined. Nice
"Map" window showing relative position.
CONS:
*SLOW* framerate. "Arcade" feel, even in advanced simulation mode. Cars
are still indestructible. Tracks are circular and they're too short (no
segmented tracks). The tracks need more variety and more quantity.

BOTTOM LINE:
For all of its improvements, I was mildly disappointed by this release.
Electronic Arts has traded a prettier game shell and easier programming
via DirectX for an in-game framerate that sucks. If you have a 200mhz
Pentium, you'll probably love NFS2. With anything less you'll likely admit
that "I told you so!"

Cheers,

Marc Collin

NFS2 PC --Just got it. Mildly disappointed.

by Marc Collin » Tue, 29 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Excellent review--it echoes my thoughts precisely.

Justin Rya

NFS2 PC --Just got it. Mildly disappointed.

by Justin Rya » Tue, 29 Apr 1997 04:00:00

I agree with you on every detail! The game is allot of glam and no
substance! And what is this ***about putting out DirectX games with no
D3D(I76 is coming out with a 3D3 patch) support!! No wonder the frame rates
are horrible! Oh and BTW if your low on memory (16megs) forget this game
your HD will be spinning forever causing your machine to produce 1 fps at
the most!!! I love win95 games:-(!!!

DOS Lives!!!!

Jo

NFS2 PC --Just got it. Mildly disappointed.

by Jo » Tue, 29 Apr 1997 04:00:00


>via DirectX for an in-game framerate that sucks. If you have a 200mhz
>Pentium, you'll probably love NFS2. With anything less you'll likely admit
>that "I told you so!"

Actually even on a P200 the frame-rate sucks - you can run full
screen, but not at full detai and ONLY with the***pit off.

Joe McGinn
===================================================
Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
===================================================

Pete

NFS2 PC --Just got it. Mildly disappointed.

by Pete » Tue, 29 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Joe, not sure why it won't run on your 200. Runs great on
mine, with everything turned to up to the max. I don't know why
but my system doesn't seem to run into all the problems that
others get with performance for NFS2 and others.

        Pete



> >via DirectX for an in-game framerate that sucks. If you have a 200mhz
> >Pentium, you'll probably love NFS2. With anything less you'll likely admit
> >that "I told you so!"

> Actually even on a P200 the frame-rate sucks - you can run full
> screen, but not at full detai and ONLY with the***pit off.

> Joe McGinn
> ===================================================
> Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997
> http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> ===================================================

Jo

NFS2 PC --Just got it. Mildly disappointed.

by Jo » Wed, 30 Apr 1997 04:00:00


>Joe, not sure why it won't run on your 200. Runs great on
>mine, with everything turned to up to the max. I don't know why
>but my system doesn't seem to run into all the problems that
>others get with performance for NFS2 and others.

Well for the record there's nothing wrong with my system. It rnus
other games perfectly, and very fast. Maybe we have different ideas of
what an acceptable frame rate is.

Joe McGinn
===================================================
Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997
http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/
===================================================

Justin Rya

NFS2 PC --Just got it. Mildly disappointed.

by Justin Rya » Wed, 30 Apr 1997 04:00:00

I have no idea what some of these developers are thinking when they leave
out D3D support in their Win95 games! It just doesn't seem logical to me!
Hell games like MTM are slow even with D3D!!!

Jo

NFS2 PC --Just got it. Mildly disappointed.

by Jo » Wed, 30 Apr 1997 04:00:00


>I have no idea what some of these developers are thinking when they leave
>out D3D support in their Win95 games! It just doesn't seem logical to me!
>Hell games like MTM are slow even with D3D!!!

Here's the story I heard (form game developers):

Microsoft's Direct3D API sucks eggs. Almost all 3D games work by
drawing triangles. Apparently (and typically) Microsoft chose a
competely different design for the D3D APIs. It does work and it is
3D, but basically the game has to be designed from the ground-up for
the Microsoft API. The problem? No problem if everyone had 3d cards -
the problem is that if you design for the Microsoft API, game
performance will TOTALLY SUCK if you don't have a 3D card at all. In
other words, as a game developer you basically have to toss off your
biggest market (i.e., people without 3d cards yet) to support the D3D
API.

I'm told by game programmers that this is why D3D has been so slow
catching on, and why so few games support it (and why for those
promising to support it, implementation is turning out to take a hell
of a lot longer than planned).

Microsoft is planning on fixing this, by providing a proper
triangle-based API in Direct3D 5.0, which will hopefully be available
in  few months (and, if we're lucky, Microsoft won't***up that API
too).

To make a long story short, basically Microsoft has failed utterly to
prvide the 3D APIs that they promised in Windows95. About two years
after Win95's released (i.e., sometime this year) they hope to fix the
deficiency and provide what they promised 2 years ago. If they fix it
right (which is a big IF I'll grant you) solid in-the-box D3D support
should be a normal feature in games by next Christmas. Sorry to be the
bearer of bad news (please don't shoot the messenger! <g>).

Joe McGinn
===================================================
Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
===================================================

Pete

NFS2 PC --Just got it. Mildly disappointed.

by Pete » Wed, 30 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Joe, I'm very picky when it comes to frame rate. In GP2 all
I have to do to get 25+ frames is turn clouds off. Unless MB plays
a big part in difference. I have an ASUS rev. 3.1 over clocked to
75mhz to give me 225mhz. I run an STB 128 Lightspeed video. I compared
a Dell 200 non MMX to mine and there was a huge difference. I don't
recall if you said you had MMX or not. Many have looked at my system
believe me frame rate is not a problem. Whose system are you using
and what mother board. By the way I also cranked my DMA speeds up
to 100 meg/sec through the bios.

        Pete


> Well for the record there's nothing wrong with my system. It rnus
> other games perfectly, and very fast. Maybe we have different ideas of
> what an acceptable frame rate is.

> Joe McGinn
> ===================================================
> Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997
> http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/
> ===================================================

Jo

NFS2 PC --Just got it. Mildly disappointed.

by Jo » Thu, 01 May 1997 04:00:00


>Joe, I'm very picky when it comes to frame rate. In GP2 all
>I have to do to get 25+ frames is turn clouds off. Unless MB plays
>a big part in difference. I have an ASUS rev. 3.1 over clocked to
>75mhz to give me 225mhz. I run an STB 128 Lightspeed video. I compared
>a Dell 200 non MMX to mine and there was a huge difference. I don't
>recall if you said you had MMX or not.

No, no MMX (which is probably about 0.001% of the PC market right
now).

IBM P200 Aptiva, Intel motherboard.

Joe McGinn
===================================================
Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997
http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/
===================================================

Pete

NFS2 PC --Just got it. Mildly disappointed.

by Pete » Thu, 01 May 1997 04:00:00

Is it possible that they optimised it for MMX even
though I don't see it mentioned on the box! Perhaps with
my overclocking and MMX its enough to push it over the
top performance wise on my system.

Pete


> No, no MMX (which is probably about 0.001% of the PC market right
> now).

> >believe me frame rate is not a problem. Whose system are you using
> >and what mother board.

> IBM P200 Aptiva, Intel motherboard.

> Joe McGinn
> ===================================================
> Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997
> http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/
> ===================================================

Pete

NFS2 PC --Just got it. Mildly disappointed.

by Pete » Thu, 01 May 1997 04:00:00

Bart, by the sounds of Joe's problems the 200 MMX may
make a big difference. Although it doesnt say enhanced for MMX
it may in fact be. I would go with the 200MMX I don't think you
will regret it.

Pete


> Have you had the opportunity to see NFS2 on like speed systems, one
> with MMX and another without. The reason I say this is I am thinking
> about upgrading my CPU. I currently have an Intel P5 133 and  the game
> plays pretty well, it will freeze for half a second a couple time a
> race and then continue.. I have seen huge discounts were just
> announced for the pentium classis on monday by Intel. If the MMX
> doesn't make a big difference I will save my dime and get one of the
> discounted chips probably a 200 or get a 150 and overclock it to 200
> (or try anyway, tom's hardware page would make me think this is
> possible, it would be the bargain way to do it) My MB shouldnt' be a
> problem it is a Tyan VX with the cache upgrade, the latest BM drivers,
> new WD HD, and MGA Millinium 4mg video card.

> Bottom line after all that rambling. Do you think this game takes
> advantage of the MMX instruction in the new CPU's ? Do you think a
> P200 would be much slower running NFS2 than a P200MMX ?

> Bartman

Justin Rya

NFS2 PC --Just got it. Mildly disappointed.

by Justin Rya » Sun, 04 May 1997 04:00:00

Thanks for the update


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.