rec.autos.simulators

by **Olly Greenfiel** » Fri, 20 Jul 2001 17:11:39

> On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 19:30:35 GMT, Galley_SimRacer

> >Just curious if anyone here bought a PS2 just to play this game?

> Yup. Totally worth it too - though of course only if you get the FF
> wheel too.

I have been waiting for about a week for my FF wheel to arrive.
Is there a major improvement using the wheel versus the joystick ?

by **Joe6** » Sat, 21 Jul 2001 00:10:40

>I have been waiting for about a week for my FF wheel to arrive.
>Is there a major improvement using the wheel versus the joystick ?

A HUGE improvement. First of al, GT3 is a driving sim. So as a minimum
you need analog gas/brakes. But operaing two small analog joysicks at
once is ackward at best. The wheel is totally intuitive OTOH.

Then there's the quality of the FF implentation. It's the second best
FF ever done in a driving game, second only to GPL (and as good as
Viper Racing, the other #2). You really get a feel for the limit of
the turning through the FF effects.

I was trying to beat the final Rally license the the other night (a
full lap) with th gamepad, and couldn't do it. The next day at work I
beat it easily with the wheel, improving my lap time by 7 seconds.

Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment

by **Christopher E. Johnso** » Sat, 21 Jul 2001 02:03:34

GT3 is an arcade game. It is nice to look at and does do FF pretty
nicely, but it isn't a sim in the traditional sense as many posts in this
newsgroup have pointed out. You can, however, do quite well in GT3 using
the above car view and a dual shock controller. First person view is
enhanced with a wheel, but I've seen plenty of folks do very well with
just a gamepad. It just depends on which view you prefer.

Chris

by **Joe6** » Sat, 21 Jul 2001 15:01:30

I couldn't disagree more. It is by any pratical definition of the word
(i.e., getting beyond purely personal taste issues like***pit views
and visible car damage).

Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment

by **Asbj?rn Bj?rnst** » Sat, 21 Jul 2001 16:14:02

> >GT3 is an arcade game. It is nice to look at and does do FF pretty
> >nicely, but it isn't a sim in the traditional sense as many posts in this
> >newsgroup have pointed out.

> I couldn't disagree more. It is by any pratical definition of the word
> (i.e., getting beyond purely personal taste issues like***pit views
> and visible car damage).

What's all this about visual damage? Lets talk about physical damage.
Can you drive a car after a 100km/h crash in real life?
Can you drive a car after a 100km/h crash in GT3? How much does the
crash affect the performance and handling of the car?
And when was the last time you saw a pack of race drivers slow down and wait
if one driver was lagging behind?
--
-asbjxrn

by **Olly Greenfiel** » Sat, 21 Jul 2001 18:32:19

Many posts in this newsgroup have also pointed out that it "is" a SIM, in
those respective peoples opinions, this is not a matter subject to majority
rule.

What is arcade versus sim is purely a matter of opinion and personal
criteria, albeit something along the lines of say "San Francisco Rush" would
generate little debate. I am sure that you are aware of the perpetual heated
debates in this newsgroup as to whether any game that has been released
since GPL is a sim. Many have argued that Nascar Heat , GP3, Mobil 1 rally,
and virtually every other game released in recent times was "too ARCADE". By
my criteria, GT3 cars feel about right to me in terms of physics model, and
it is not as if I have not driven numerous High H.P. street cars in 30
years( which are the essence of GT3), and I have played virtually every
racing game on systems ranging from atari 2600's to Genesis to 3DO to PSX to
PS2, not to mention TRS-80 color computer to Atari 800's to AMIGAS to 4
generations of PC's. I own virtually every supposed "sim" that's available
for the PC ( GPL, Viper, SCGT,GP3, MBTR, Rallymasters, ETC) , and I have
played and often enjoyed as well as hated many "arcade" racers over the
decades of video***.
I think I have a pretty good perspective on the range of the extremes of
arcade to sim, and IMHO GT3 rests on the SIM half of the spectrum. Does it
allow for some unrealistic things to happen in a race , yes it does.
Those things are sometimes annoying for me to, but they are greatly
outweighed by the "feel" of the cars , which is better than in many PC sims
that I own.
Not to mention, the best graphics I have ever seen in a racing game, PC or
Console.

> > First of al, GT3 is a driving sim. So as a minimum
> > you need analog gas/brakes. But operaing two small analog joysicks at
> > once is ackward at best. The wheel is totally intuitive OTOH.

> GT3 is an arcade game. It is nice to look at and does do FF pretty
> nicely, but it isn't a sim in the traditional sense as many posts in this
> newsgroup have pointed out. You can, however, do quite well in GT3 using
> the above car view and a dual shock controller. First person view is
> enhanced with a wheel, but I've seen plenty of folks do very well with
> just a gamepad. It just depends on which view you prefer.

> Chris

by **Olly Greenfiel** » Sat, 21 Jul 2001 19:00:28

Realism is all a matter of degree in any sim. Some sims don't represent an
aspect of reality at all( GT3 damage modeling for example), or very poorly.
Others do an adequate job, and a very few do a good job. However, you asked
"Can you drive a car after a 100km/h crash in real life?", and my response
is, how many people would realistically even survive a crash at 100kph in a
street car. Should we realistically model what happens to a car, let alone
the driver, at extreme racing speeds in a crash ? Actually , I personally
have always thought that
"sims" like N4, nascar heat, GPL, SCGT, Viper racing and every other sim I
have ever played, have failed to show how devastating a collision with a
wall at 150 + MPH can be. I don't think you need to show the drivers body
parts all over the track, but the dented fenders and broken wheels are
pretty unrealistic given how hard I have smacked into walls sometimes in
sims. How about dozens of pieces of body panels flying all over the place in
a severe collision, that would greatly differentiate a minor fender bender
that you can fix in the pits from a race ending, hilight film ,end over end
crash. That would be simulating damage modeling accurately.

> > >GT3 is an arcade game. It is nice to look at and does do FF pretty
> > >nicely, but it isn't a sim in the traditional sense as many posts in
this
> > >newsgroup have pointed out.

> > I couldn't disagree more. It is by any pratical definition of the word
> > (i.e., getting beyond purely personal taste issues like***pit views
> > and visible car damage).

> What's all this about visual damage? Lets talk about physical damage.
> Can you drive a car after a 100km/h crash in real life?
> Can you drive a car after a 100km/h crash in GT3? How much does the
> crash affect the performance and handling of the car?
> And when was the last time you saw a pack of race drivers slow down and
wait
> if one driver was lagging behind?
> --
> -asbjxrn

by **Christopher E. Johnso** » Sat, 21 Jul 2001 20:10:12

says...
Excellent points. I didn't even get into the pathetic AI that
disqualifies GT3 as a sim. I was willing to entertain the idea that some
folks could think that GT3 simulates driving and driving alone, but even
that attempt to define GT3 as a sim fails.

GT3 is a nice arcade game that has a splash of realism in it. Maybe it's
because arcade games don't typically try to be a little realistic that
people are confused, but GT3 isn't in the same league as a racing
"simulation" compared to many, many PC titles.

Chris

by **Christopher E. Johnso** » Sat, 21 Jul 2001 20:25:13

I think our definitions of what a simulation is are just different. GT3
is an arcade game that has some realistic elements thrown in. I'd
compare it to High Heat Baseball. High Heat is a visual baseball game
with good graphics that attempts to model visually how baseball is
played. It does some things very nicely but fails is some very important
areas. The game is fun to play, but it is not a baseball simulation. It
is really an arcade game that has attempted to model some of the
realistic aspects of baseball. It fails compared to real baseball sims
like Diamond Mind Baseball to deliver the realism that people that are
interested in simulating a baseball game are looking for. Is High Heat a
fun game? Yes, and I own every version of it. Is it a baseball "sim"?
No, it isn't. It has all of those "feel" elements you describe above
(except for baseball), but it has too many missing or broken features to
be in the sim category.

GT3 is fun to play for some, nice to look at, but it simply is missing
too many things to be considered a racing simulation. I've also played
every sim I can get my hands on since computer driving games have been
around and for me GT3 is squarely in the arcade camp.

Chris

by **Joe6** » Sun, 22 Jul 2001 00:21:55

Pure nonsense. Whether it's a sim is based on the driving experience.

It's NOT about if it accurately siimulates some real-world version of
racing (i.e, Nascar, Indy racing, etc.), nor the AI. That's just
personal taste, what kind of sim you prefer.

Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment

by **Joe6** » Sun, 22 Jul 2001 00:27:41

Agreed .... bu based on your post (re text basbeball sims) your
definition if so skewed towards realism that the definition is
meaningless, it has no practical application that can be useful to
anyone other than yourself.

This statement prooves my point. It is completely misleading to anyone
who just wants to know what kind of game GT3 is.

Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment

by **Christopher E. Johnso** » Sun, 22 Jul 2001 03:16:41

Ha, so how is my definition "personal taste" and your's isn't? I'm not
following your logic here.

Let's just agree to disagree. Racing games that don't simulate racing
aren't sims in my book <g>. I agree that there are degrees of
simulation, but GT3 is (IMHO) an arcade/action game with realistic
elements and not a simulation with some arcade elements. Rally
Championship 2000 is much closer to a simulation that has arcade/action
elements than GT3 is. AI and all of the stuff you casually sweep away as
insignificant are the main reasons that I enjoy driving "simulations".

It is much more accurate to describe GT3 as the High Heat of driving
games than it is to say that GT3 is the best driving game since GPL.
You're correct, that's my taste, but I think there are many PC sim fans
who would agree with my assessment. We just have fundamental differences
about what a racing simulation is.

Chris

by **Eldre** » Sun, 22 Jul 2001 05:53:12

>I was trying to beat the final Rally license the the other night (a
>full lap) with th gamepad, and couldn't do it. The next day at work I
>beat it easily with the wheel, improving my lap time by 7 seconds.

You have a wheel on your system at WORK?!? Must be a nice job...<g>

Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59...

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by JM » Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:41:53

Give over, I've played both RC2000 and GT+GT2 extensively. There is nothing
in RC2000 that even remotely resembles driving any kind of real car. The
scenery is nice, and the stages are proper length, but the physics and
control are a complete joke.

But if I get in the Mini in GT2, it's the nearest thing I've ever
experienced in a game to driving a real one. the GT series may not be great
simulations, but they are sims, by any definition.

cheers
John

by **Christopher E. Johnso** » Mon, 23 Jul 2001 00:39:56

Again, the GT3 as a sim folks seem to not take into account the entire
simulation package. I agree that GT3 can be discussed as a sim if you
are just talking about driving (although I don't think it is, but I can
at least see how folks could), but as an entire package it is much less
of a sim than RC2000. That's my point.

High Heat is a baseball game that does simulate some aspects of baseball
correctly, but fails in many areas. GT3 is a racing game that mirrors
High Heat's weaknesses and strengths, except we're talking about racing
instead of baseball. I don't consider High Heat a baseball sim and I
certainly don't think GT3 is a racing sim. High Heat isn't Triple Play
Baseball (a truly arcade game), but it isn't a sim either. GT3 certainly
isn't Rally Masters, but it isn't NASCAR 4 either. I'm talking about the
entire package, not just the car physics (or the graphics).

Chris

rec.autos.simulators

Any R.A.S. die-hards buy a PS2 and GT3?

Any R.A.S. die-hards buy a PS2 and GT3?

Any R.A.S. die-hards buy a PS2 and GT3?

Any R.A.S. die-hards buy a PS2 and GT3?

Any R.A.S. die-hards buy a PS2 and GT3?

Any R.A.S. die-hards buy a PS2 and GT3?

Any R.A.S. die-hards buy a PS2 and GT3?

Any R.A.S. die-hards buy a PS2 and GT3?

Any R.A.S. die-hards buy a PS2 and GT3?

Any R.A.S. die-hards buy a PS2 and GT3?

Any R.A.S. die-hards buy a PS2 and GT3?

Any R.A.S. die-hards buy a PS2 and GT3?

Any R.A.S. die-hards buy a PS2 and GT3?

Any R.A.S. die-hards buy a PS2 and GT3?

Any R.A.S. die-hards buy a PS2 and GT3?

Any R.A.S. die-hards buy a PS2 and GT3?