rec.autos.simulators

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

I pray that both PC and console offerings give consumers the same things
for once. But I seriously doubt it if the past is any indicator. And why
Tiburon insists on trying to topple Papyrus' domination, I'll never
know. I, personally, didn't buy Thunder 2004 (I'm guilty of renting it
for the PS2, tho) for any systems because of their Thunder 2003 PC
release. Yet I'll probably buy the PC version of this one, and if it
sucks...I won't buy the next release.

It's also kind of funny in a way. Companies complain that game sales for
the PC can't compare to consoles, yet the gameplay on consoles is more
fun. Prime example being NASCAR Thunder. PS2 version is fun, PC version
isn't. Is it so difficult for a developer to add both realistic physics
/and/ gameplay? Or is that NASCAR simmers are so ***, so
inflexible, in their ways that they prefer to smite actual gameplay in
such games?

-Will

They look as advanced as those of Burnout in 1998.  Flat, dull and grey.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

----
GameSpy: Will this title be much different than the console games? If
so, how much?

Hawkins: We're focusing exclusively on features that PC gamers have
requested. Especially vehicle dynamics, physics, the latest rules and
full field online racing.
----

If that's all they're going to offer, and I'll wait until the reviews
pour in next year, I probably won't buy it. As much as I want better AI
and gameplay, I'll stick with NR2003.

-Will

Here's the juicy bit:

Hawkins: As mentioned earlier, we are developing the game internally
at the Tiburon studio in sunny Florida. The team includes veterans
from Papyrus, creators of the critically acclaimed NASCAR Racing
series, veterans from Image Space Incorporated, the developers of
Sports Car GT and the critically acclaimed F1 series, as well as
experienced staff from the other hit games developed here. The team is
a great mix of experience and enthusiasm built to create the NASCAR
game that PC gamers are waiting for.

In that same screenshot, the track looks a lot grittier, though. Apart
from the "WAY" text, the walls look nice.

Maybe those are PS2 shots?

-Will

---
GameSpy: Will this title be much different than the console games? If
so, how much?

Hawkins: We're focusing exclusively on features that PC gamers have
requested. Especially vehicle dynamics, physics, the latest rules and
full field online racing.
---

The way I translate it is: "We're focusing exclusively on features that
PC gamers had in NASCAR Racing 2003."

Does the racing community really need another NASCAR Racing clone? Maybe
I'm way off target here....

-Will

One thing that has irritated me to no end about Thunder was the lack of
interesting AI and strange physics. Even the Thunder '04 demo is guilty
on both counts, if it's any measure of the full version. NR2003, guilty
on the former.

Perhaps what I'm asking for is impossible, but I'm sure a lot of the
guys there are really intelligent and could pull these things off.
Here's what I suggest (it's all entirely my opinion):

All of the physics programmers, track creators and graphics guys need to
get actual seat time in whatever car(s) they're modelling. The physics
guys would get an idea of the feel they need to shoot for, and the
graphics guys would have a great source to make the title visually
emulate reality. The track creators would also know what is exactly
wrong with their current track models.

 From there, I'd follow the path that the Papy dev's did: get in touch,
for fee or free, with a Cup team engineer and get piles of info and
input. The gentleman who went out of his way to help Papyrus deserves
praise, and more companies oughta go that route to make their games more
realistic. What NR2003 has become, thanks to this engineer, is
absolutely stunning.

For believability (is that even a word?), the track guys need to get
themselves straightened out. Tell 'em to play NR2002 or 2003, go visit
the real tracks, get them on-board videos, /something/...because the
track models they push out the door are complete manure.

Once again, for fee or free, get a bunch of *** simmers (include
those with actual racing experience) to alpha and beta test the product.
If it were my show, I'd want their advice during the real development
phase. Then it would be easier to make changes to the code early on,
instead of having the idea of a "re-write" as a road block during the
beta testing.

Better AI needs to be implimented. I don't know about anyone else, but
I'm pretty darn tired of racing against AI who don't intentionally push
me around. If I'm constantly moving the car in front of me around, I
expect the AI to lose "patience" with me or get "angry". If I'm blocking
the car behind me, same thing. Is there a legitimate reason why don't I
see cars drafting me if I'm quicker? That doesn't sound very realistic
to me. A few 3D shooters have AI that are pretty slick, working as a
team to eliminate you or to achieve a goal. I don't see why NASCAR PC
titles have to be neglected in this area in favor of online play.

The gameplay (career mode and whatnot) isn't a big issue code-wise, IMO.
---
Even though I think NASCAR titles need to go farther, we've really come
a long way with Papyrus. We have physics that closely resemble that of
driving a stock car, tire models close to reality, realistic tracks, AI
who race eachother, superb netcode and the list goes on.

Some might say that I want a Papyrus clone, and that really isn't the
case. Papyrus did a lot of things right. A logical and easy to navigate
menu system, a menu from within the race view itself, quick loading
times, F# buttons to control well thought status screens (such as live
timing), a fully functional replay studio, etc etc. Thunder needs a dose
of common sense in its structure, and as they say "Imitation is the best
form of flattery." Why reinvent the wheel when it gets the job done
perfectly?

If EA can't match those things for the targeted crowd, the ***
players, then they're just pissing away a portion of their NASCAR
license. Ever since Thunder 2003, that's been their target IIRC.

I'll be bold and say that they haven't converted many NASCAR Racing
fans. And until they analyze and understand why Papyrus was so
successful among the *** NASCAR simmers, EA is merely wasting
money. When it comes to what the *** guys and gals want, it's a
simulator with realistic physics. Papyrus, on that count, wins hands down.

-Will, who's adding his $20 into the opinion pot

"Even though I think NASCAR titles need to go farther, we've really come
a long way with Papyrus. We have physics that closely resemble that of
driving a stock car, tire models close to reality, realistic tracks, AI
who race eachother, superb netcode and the list goes on."

Per the menu system, it is without a doubt, one of the best out there.
There isn't clutter and everything is organized in a logical manner.
And, gosh darn it, we get access to a menu while driving. Thunder needs
such a thing. Perhaps they think players wouldn't need to fine-tune
settings while in the game? It's something that makes sense, it's
useful, and isn't like asking them for a real-time weather system.

-Will

There's probably only one thing standing in the way of EA making it's
NT series more realistic: money. The NT series has been selling rather
well as it is, and now it's the only Nascar game in the market. So why
would they put more money in the development knowing that by doing so
they would only achieve marginal sales growth?
--
Jussi 'Igor' Koukku