Hi Rich,
Now you've put me on the spot. I now have to justify my ratbag statements.
Well I suppose one shouldn't open ones' mouth unless one is prepared to
speak to their opinions. OK so here I go.
"game" and a simulator"? <<
I think to a large extent the difference, like beauty, is in the eye of the
beholder. If you asked twenty people what they see as the vital differences
here you'd likely get twenty different definitions. All I can do is try to
tell you what makes me feel more like I'm playing a game rather than
driving a sim. Even this isn't a simple thing as it's probably a case where
a complex variety of individual perceptions combine to from a general
weight of impression.
I think its important to mention here that I don't use the term game as an
insult. There are lots of great games around that are worthy of praise. I
believe I use the term in this context as meaning a game ( or simulator )
that depicts a feeling of realism that's below a certain undefinable, and
no doubt personnel, threshold. Where then is the threshold point where a
game becomes a simulator ? No one, I suggest, can decree with authority
that something is or isn't a simulator or a game. All these kinds of
remarks from anyone are on a ' In My Humble Opinion ' basis.
The game/simulator threshold is not an absolute but a moving and ever
developing target I believe. Its established by the standards one has seen
about and by what one is used to.
If you were to ask me what I think is the highest standard at the moment I
would have to say GP2 for a number of reasons. The AI, the car handling,
the excellent all important feel of tyre/road adhesion. There's a number of
things that combine to make the overall feel. Interesting GP2 has got some
very big deficiencies, not the least being that it doesn't handle road
camber or banking. These would appear to be insurmountable objections to
any claim of realism. But somewhat surprisingly, the weight of what feels
good about GP2's driving model so overrides these objections one doesn't
seems to notice them once you're in the***pit.
If you were to ask the game/sim question several years ago you'd get an
entirely different answer than you would today I dare say. But at any point
in the state of the art, I think an important all-be-it comparative-ish
aspect must always be, " so that the general feeling of ones' attentions,
concerns, and exertions, are as nearly identical to the attentions,
concerns, and exertions, as one would experience in the real-world
situation that the illusion is attempting to simulate so far as the state
of the technology will allow ". An absolute philosophical answer would have
to be something like, " so that it is impossible to tell or perceive via
any sense or method, any distinction whatsoever between what is real and
what is simulated". Obviously PC games/sims At The Moment are not so much
concerned with the ultimate philosophical view as they are with the other,
the state of the technology being the limiting factor.
From the little time I've spent comparatively with CPR, just a few hours
compared with thousands of hours with other titles, I feel that my
attentions, concerns, and exertions, are being burdened with non-life-like
matters - like the twitchy steering, the poor AI, and the miss-sized
***pit perspective. Other unreal items don't help the illusion like
gravel traps that have about the same traction coefficient as asphalt. Any
one of things might be dismissible, but as I have said, the product as a
whole stands or falls on the ability of the combination of the components
to produce the all important ever illusive life-like feel. The weight of
CPRs' components don't combine to produce a realistic feel compared to
what's already available in my humble opinion. ( Consider though that I
may be a biased anti-CART pro-F1 fanatic that simply can't be pleased with
any GP2 pretender, and who can't tell the difference between the correct
handling of a CART car and a hamburger ).
simulator (ie. PC)
that is going to give the user a totally realistic driving experience. You
yourself pointed out that in some cases true "realism" must be sacrificed
for the good of the product, either in visual terms, vehicle
controllability, etc. This is the case with all products of this genre I
could list tons of "realism" caveats to ICR2, N2, and GP2, but nothing that
I don't realise must be done because of current limitations in hardware,
control devices, or output displays.
this alone doesn't turn the game from a serious car simulation to a "game".
<<
Here's a point that we're going to disagree on. I do believe that a bad AI
alone can ruin a otherwise good product. AI certainly seems to be one of
the more difficult areas that programmers strive to come to grips with. It
is often cited as a particular weak point in many a sim offering in a
number simulation and game genes. Again I think my expectations are based
largely on what has been elsewhere achieved, rather than on perceived
reality alone.
conditions which are available in competing products <<
Setup options are nice but they are of a lower level of importance as the
actual driving IMO. I recall that GP1 was held by a large slice of the sim
racing community as simple the best available even years after its release.
This was in spite of the fact that much later released products like ICR1 &
2 had far superior graphics and setup options. But at the time GP1 had a
driving feel that no other game ( or sim ) came near. In spite of the
extensive setup options and great graphics of later games GP1 held pride of
place with many sim racing enthusiasts. I think that it goes to show that
the bottom line is not setup-ability or even graphics quality, but
drivability. I think the same thing that was most important to racing
enthusiasts then will remain true always. In fact one can even at this time
still do a stint at GP1, a years out of date 16 colour simple plain polygon
2D game, and be impressed by how good it is even compared to today's
games/sims.
N2), what other basis are you using to discount the sim? <<
Certainly if the CART team have a good 3D ( or six point ) maths model this
would be a real feather in their cap. But on just how good the model is I
think the jury is still out. An excellent 2D model would be a lot better
than a mediocre 3D model IMHO. Probably ( maybe ) at least 95% of a cars'
dynamics are essentially 2D functions so I'm not that wooed by this
particular claim until we have a chance to digest how well its been
implemented.
Unfortunately for me, the demo track is one I don't like much. I'm keen to
see how it feels on ovals and on some of my preferred CART circuits.
Some friends and I are hoping to try some network races with the sim. We've
done this in the past with Nascar2 which is a lot of fun.
It also occurs to me that the CART team may have been pressed to get the
game out before Christmas in whatever form could be managed in that
timeframe. I also note from the CART teams' comments that they seem
committed to improving the sim, in their assertions, until it is the best
of its type around. This however seems to already be more than a little
contradicted by the fact that they have not included 3DFX support, but
rather MSs' second rate D3D system. This would seem to imply that in
reality they'll only improve the game in so far as the biases and
restrictions on MSs' policies allow. Already MSs' policies seem to have
badly dented this product.
In any case its very good to see that the CART people are taking part in
the newsgroup. Its also good to see that they appear to have skin thick
enough for the inevitable flames and moanings from the malcontents like
me J I thinks its appropriate to let them know how we see their product.
Hopefully they may find something constructive from user comments.
Hope the above explains a bit of what I mean by my former shorter remarks.
Best Regards
Phillip McNelley
The GRANDprix 2 Unoffical Manual
http://www.racesimcentral.net/~philmak/GP2MAN/