rec.autos.simulators

Oooh-er!! -Snooty!

FYI, whatever the original intent of this newsgroup, it was overtaken by
real time approximations of racecar simulations nearly 10 years ago.

I don't rule them out, it's just I haven't seen anything coming even close
to what I consider to be a racing sim in PC terms (and I'm not even
considering the online multiplayer aspect in this respect) being released on
a console. Even with dedicated, force feedback controllers they fail to rise
above the most basic of arcade levels. Arcade machines like Daytona and
Indy500 do a better job of being a simulation and so do their PC conversions
over any console port, IMNSHO.

Jan.
=---

I'm glad the original poster of this thread took the time to post the links
and quotes that he did.  I for one found it very interesting, even if nobody
else did.

Anything that, within limits, believably portrays a RL racing series.

Like I said, there are limits. While I would like for racing sims to have
more detail/complexity like that, it's not always technically possible or
even commercially viable. Also, and this is often overlooked, it has to
appeal to less ***simmers or I'd have almost nobody to race.

Ehm yes... quite. Like I said before, I think this prejudice is largely in
the eye of the beholder. The simple truth is games which are considered
borderline arcade or arcade are classified as such because they have arcade
features like having to earn cars and tracks (this can be forgiven) or
canned physics / eye candy damage only (which can start to grate after a
while).

To somewhat get back on topic you're not going to sit there and tell me GT4
is a sim, that a floating bumper view is a "realistic" way to drive a car,
or that a couple of sticks and some plastic netting can stop a Subaru WRC
from going down a cliff. That's just one of the horrible arcade aspects of
the GT series, those "poing"-walls. Real walls go "thud". <g>

They don't have many "sim" aspects either. To be fair to console games,
though, I did forget about 355 Challenge. That was pretty good and,
amazingly, well received by the console audience as well.

Ok, having to earn the cars and no damage (for the moment) are arade like
features, but other than that it's pretty good (i.e. the driving is
believable), IMO.

Sorry for being a cynic, but I've been listening to developers of borderline
arcade racing game talking about how the physics in their next game would be
so much more sophisticated, where, in fact, they'd get dumbed down further
in every incarnation, for nearly a decade now. I'll believe it when I see
it.

Jan.
=---

That arbitrariness is very much a two-edged sword.  We could make the
definition very narrow technically and exclude all games, or we could make
it so broad that it even includes things like Interstate 76.

It's completely arbitrary and therefore it is not defensible for someone to
say that we can't talk about game X here because it's not simmy enough.  If
it simulates (in the ordinary English sense of the word, not the technical
sense) driving a car, it's a valid topic of discussion.

Again, if you want to use sim in the technical sense rather than the
ordinary English sense then none of these games are truly sims.  But that's
not the way gamers ordinarily use the word sim.  A sim is something that
appears to simulate reality, pure and simple.  You can't get into a nuts and
bolts definition of it without invalidating nearly every game out there.

Every generation of sims is more accurate than the previous, does that mean
that all the older games are no longer sims?  Again look at GPL.  At the
time it was considered the greatest sim ever, now even Kaemmer has said he
doesn't like to play it anymore because he can't stand the tire model.  Does
that mean it's no longer a sim?  If so then there are a whole lot of OT
posts in this group.

I just do not believe it is valid to get into technical arguments about what
is a sim or what is not a sim as long as we are talking about games that
were designed exclusively for their entertainment value.  The definition of
sim is arbitrary, and it's a moving target, so excluding some games from
discussion and including others on that basis is just silly.

People who aren't interested in console games should simply ignore the posts
about console games.  What's so hard about that?  Can you imagine someone at
a trade show or exhibition walking into a room where a presentation was
being given, interrupting the conversation and telling people "I'm sorry,
your discussion is not on topic for this room, you will have to move
somewhere else."  People who don't like RSC should just ignore the posts and
move on, leave the discussion to people who are interested in it.

Kendt

PS - that's "recreation" for any non-English speakers out there - as
in something you do for fun and enjoyment.