rec.autos.simulators

That's becuase the LAST name of this group is SIMULATORS and NFS2 is 100% PURE
ARCADE.  There is nothing SIM about it - no damage - no rules - no AI.  It is
great as a multimedia performance car encyclopedia but as a game it rank up
there with SEGA RALLY.  

POD is more of a simulation than NFS2.

-Your In-Car Full Time - No Flying out to a Bird's Eye View when you

 Turn Around

- I Like the NFS2's Network Support Better Than NFS SE's Network
 Support

- And I Like the Fact that There is a Lotus V8 (Unfortunatly Its the

 Slowest Car in the Game Which Means that the Car won't get the  
 respect it deserves.

Cheers,
             Kris

Joe

Need For Speed II Review
===================

Graphics/Visuals: B+

The graphics and tracks are very flashy, lot's of nice scenery (e.g.,
in the Vancouver track you can see familiar landmarks like the Science
World geodisic dome, BC place, Skytrain). They lose some marks because
of lack of realism though - the original NFS tracks were in some ways
more visually impressive because they seemed like real places. Most of
the NFS2 tracks (the Vancouver one being an exception) seem more like
"fantasy tracks".

New 3D Engine: D-

A hyped new feature that is an extreme disappointment is the new 3D
graphics engine. As many people have pointed out, they've just
replaced the "invisible walls" in the original NFS with "visible
walls" in NFS2. There is almost no freedom of movement, even less than
in the sorta-3D Road Rash. The only new feature the 3D engine has
allowed is driving around the tracks backwards (big deal), and the
cost is overall game performance I'd estimate at about 1/2 of the
original NFS.

The original NFS could play at very high framerates with all graphics
on in hi-res on a P133. NFS II is *barely* playable on a P200, and
then only by turning the graphics detail down AND turning off the
***pit. This last is really unacceptable - they are clearly drawing
the whole screen and then drawing the***pit over top of it, causing
an unusably slow frame-rate even on a P200 with graphic detail set
low. And the***pit takes up half the screen with mostly static
graphics - even a half-assed attempt at optimization would make it
much faster than no-cockpit mode (i.e., since the***pit takes up
over half the screen - there are very few actual pixels to redraw
witht the***pit on). I can only presume the market-droids at EA
insisted on shipping the game before it was optimized (and before D3D
support could be added).

Another problem: you can stay in your car when you crash and flip, and
this is advertised as a feature. But it was actually a lot more fun
the old way, where you would get an outside view of crashes. You could
really see it much better.

Tracks: C-

A few of the tracks are OK, but as mentioned they lack both the
realistic feel and variety of the original tracks. All would have been
forgiven if they'd just included the original tracks too (obviously in
a different format, but they could have spent some time on this
instead of useless video footage).

And since this poor selection of tracks comes with no track editor,
there is no chance of the track situation improving through public
domain efforts.

Sound: B-

The environment sound is superb. It changes as you move through a
track and is as good or better than any game I've played.

However, they lose marks for the pitiful "electric lawn mower" samples
it sounds like they used for engines (all of which sound exactly the
same to me, another area where the original NFS was superior to NFS
II).

Car Selection: D-

Again, the original NFS was vastly superior. All of the cars in NFS II
look, sound, and feel the same (except some are slower or have poorer
handling). Basically as far as I'm concerned it comes with one car,
the McClaren F1, and there's no reason to choose any other car for any
track. The realistic cars of the original NFS (with their vastly
different looks, sounds, and driving feels) were a great deal more
fun. And since NFS II seems to have an almost identical
physics/driving model, I don't see why they didn't include the
original cars. They were a lot more fun to drive than the "fantasy
cars" of NFS II.

Gameplay and Driving Model: C+

There's really not much wrong with the gameplay and driving model for
a circa 1995 game. But it is basically unchanged from the original and
the world has moved on. They lose big points for not including direct
internet multiplay like most modern games do (it may work with KALI,
but why should I have to pay for and use complex 3rd-party addons for
what other game companies are including in the box?).

Replays: F

Really, really bad - no rewind, no fast forward. So if you have that
one spectacular crash you have to watch the whole race to get to it,
and then you can only watch it once. Since the original NFS actually
had a much better replay system, I can only give a failing grade to
the utterly lame NFS II replay feature.

The Final Score:
============
Graphics/Visuals: B+
New 3D Engine: D-
Tracks: C-
Sound: B-
Car Selection: D-
Gameplay and Driving Model: C+
Replays: F

Overall rating for Need For Speed II: D

The Bottom Line:
=============

For all the hype and expectations (I personaly loved NFS) NFS II has
to rate as the first major *** disappointment of 1997. Should you
but NFS II? In a word, no. If you want a great racing game I'd
recommend scouring the cheap-bins or second-hand adsfor NFS SE; I
really think almost everyone would enjoy that more than NFS II. NFS II
is a continuation of a string of disappointing "all eye candy no
gameplay" titles from Electronic Arts, who really seem to have lost
their touch.

Joe

Joe

Need For Speed II Review
===================

Graphics/Visuals: B+

The graphics and tracks are very flashy, lot's of nice scenery (e.g.,
in the Vancouver track you can see familiar landmarks like the Science
World geodisic dome, BC place, Skytrain). They lose some marks because
of lack of realism though - the original NFS tracks were in some ways
more visually impressive because they seemed like real places. Most of
the NFS2 tracks (the Vancouver one being an exception) seem more like
"fantasy tracks".

New 3D Engine: D-

A hyped new feature that is an extreme disappointment is the new 3D
graphics engine. As many people have pointed out, they've just
replaced the "invisible walls" in the original NFS with "visible
walls" in NFS2. There is almost no freedom of movement, even less than
in the sorta-3D Road Rash. The only new feature the 3D engine has
allowed is driving around the tracks backwards (big deal), and the
cost is overall game performance I'd estimate at about 1/2 of the
original NFS.

The original NFS could play at very high framerates with all graphics
on in hi-res on a P133. NFS II is *barely* playable on a P200, and
then only by turning the graphics detail down AND turning off the
***pit. This last is really unacceptable - they are clearly drawing
the whole screen and then drawing the***pit over top of it, causing
an unusably slow frame-rate even on a P200 with graphic detail set
low. And the***pit takes up half the screen with mostly static
graphics - even a half-assed attempt at optimization would make it
much faster than no-cockpit mode (i.e., since the***pit takes up
over half the screen - there are very few actual pixels to redraw
witht the***pit on). I can only presume the market-droids at EA
insisted on shipping the game before it was optimized (and before D3D
support could be added).

Another problem: you can stay in your car when you crash and flip, and
this is advertised as a feature. But it was actually a lot more fun
the old way, where you would get an outside view of crashes. You could
really see it much better.

Tracks: C-

A few of the tracks are OK, but as mentioned they lack both the
realistic feel and variety of the original tracks. All would have been
forgiven if they'd just included the original tracks too (obviously in
a different format, but they could have spent some time on this
instead of useless video footage).

And since this poor selection of tracks comes with no track editor,
there is no chance of the track situation improving through public
domain efforts.

Sound: B-

The environment sound is superb. It changes as you move through a
track and is as good or better than any game I've played.

However, they lose marks for the pitiful "electric lawn mower" samples
it sounds like they used for engines (all of which sound exactly the
same to me, another area where the original NFS was superior to NFS
II).

Car Selection: D-

Again, the original NFS was vastly superior. All of the cars in NFS II
look, sound, and feel the same (except some are slower or have poorer
handling). Basically as far as I'm concerned it comes with one car,
the McClaren F1, and there's no reason to choose any other car for any
track. The realistic cars of the original NFS (with their vastly
different looks, sounds, and driving feels) were a great deal more
fun. And since NFS II seems to have an almost identical
physics/driving model, I don't see why they didn't include the
original cars. They were a lot more fun to drive than the "fantasy
cars" of NFS II.

Gameplay and Driving Model: C+

There's really not much wrong with the gameplay and driving model for
a circa 1995 game. But it is basically unchanged from the original and
the world has moved on. They lose big points for not including direct
internet multiplay like most modern games do (it may work with KALI,
but why should I have to pay for and use complex 3rd-party addons for
what other game companies are including in the box?).

Replays: F

Really, really bad - no rewind, no fast forward. So if you have that
one spectacular crash you have to watch the whole race to get to it,
and then you can only watch it once. Since the original NFS actually
had a much better replay system, I can only give a failing grade to
the utterly lame NFS II replay feature.

The Final Score:
============
Graphics/Visuals: B+
New 3D Engine: D-
Tracks: C-
Sound: B-
Car Selection: D-
Gameplay and Driving Model: C+
Replays: F

Overall rating for Need For Speed II: D

The Bottom Line:
=============

For all the hype and expectations (I personaly loved NFS) NFS II has
to rate as the first major *** disappointment of 1997. Should you
but NFS II? In a word, no. If you want a great racing game I'd
recommend scouring the cheap-bins or second-hand adsfor NFS SE; I
really think almost everyone would enjoy that more than NFS II. NFS II
is a continuation of a string of disappointing "all eye candy no
gameplay" titles from Electronic Arts, who really seem to have lost
their touch.

Joe

I couldn't agree more with everything you wrote.My thoughts exactly, and
obviously everybody else around here.
To bad for NFS II.
It seem that we all will have to wait for something new from Papyrus.They
are real and only masters for realistic sims.......

                                                                        marko

I wouldn't go so far as to say it sucks...

I've enjoyed the more realistic handling than on NFS1.  The hardware
requirements have however taxed my 'lil 133 out.  I'm hoping that 3D
support will happen along.

There are codes out there that add a new element as well.  I beleive I got
them at gamespot.  They allow you to drive all the civilian vehicles
including the semi cab.  All of these vehicles perform and sound like the
real thing.

In sum, I haven't given up on it yet.

Glenn

Maybe if they had left in the Cop and the Staged Circuits this game
could have salvaged some enjoyment, but as it is I wouldn't recommend
it to anyone who knows how good it's predecessor was.

Cheers.

--John (Still playing NFSSE and loving it)
--
 Note: my real e-mail address is below. Delete the asterisks.
------------------------------+--------------------------

  Seattle, Washington USA.    |    http://www.racesimcentral.net/~jsilva

I completely agree with your review of NFS II, very disappointing.
However, I wanted to ask a question regarding the comment below on NFS
SE. I have NFS and love it. When NFS SE came out, I never bought it
because I heard so many reports about unbelievably slow framerates,
terrible joystick control, and no support for steering controllers. I
assumed this was all because NFS SE was one of the first Win95 games
and it had optimization problems. Is this all untrue? Were patches
made available that fixed the problems with NFS SE? I remember NFS SE
was supposed to have network support, new tracks, and time of day
change, so I would love to buy it if it runs better than NFS II. I
have a P166 32mb, Intergraph Intense 3D, Monster 3D, TSW steering
controller, and I can't play NFS II without turning off some detail. I
have heard rumors the there will be a NFS II SE with 3D card support.
Of course EA would never give us a "free" patch for anything. Thanks
again for the factual NFS II review.

Don Chapman

Joe

NFS2SE...  I can see it.  "Now with 3D support"...

--kodiak

----

HINT for sentients wishing to email: remove the Xs