rec.autos.simulators

by **Stanley Cha** » Thu, 17 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Hi,

Just spent 3 hours with NFS2. Kudos to EA Sports on a job well done. The
graphics are mind-blowing. They are very sharp and richly detailed
(better than Monaco in GP2), plus an illusion of speed par excellence.
Granted, I am using a 200MMX system, but this game really flies. No
other game gives you the feel of 300+kph (which is faster than an F1 car
down Hockenheim, is this for real?), but you really feel like you're
flying along, and with everything so pin-sharp.

The circuits are wonderful. Cambered sweepers with incredible changes of
elevation. Much more thrilling than the NFS circuits. I had wondered why
wouldn't they do a GT1 sim (so we can race these cars in a `proper' sim
environment, qualifying et al), but no series in the world has such
beautiful tracks. The test track has banking where the apron area is
flat (gives you problems like the NASCAR/ IRL race at Texas(I think)),
for NASCAR fans - you can even see planes taking off and landing! Some
of the advanced tracks are so delightful to drive, sort of like what
Papy would like us to experience in the tracks of yore with their
upcoming sim.

TO complement this, you get an improved car physics model. This is no
GP2, but the Lotus GT1 handles very well, probably closest to the race
car. Very responsive under cornering and breaking. You do get wheel spin
under accleration (wish they could have incorporated the GP2 clutch
feature), and the rear does tend to break away under heavy braking. And,
probably after requests from the sim community, a `sorta' setup is
incorporated. Brake bias, downforce and ratios can be adjusted in steps
of 3. Not a lot of precision there, but the differences in setup are
easily observed. Some of the cars (the bigger V10/12 stuff) handle like
bollocks, probably to represent the trade-off vis-a-vis power.

There is a bonus track discussed in the manual, which you get,as before,
after winning the tourney. I wish that the time of day feature had been
implemented though. Strange how it wasn't since it was an SE feature.
I was worried about my GP1/ CH Pedal compatibility after coming across
some posts in this newsgroup. I have it plugged into the SB16 port.
Works very well in my system.

I've not really seen a game which screams along on my system like NFS2.
Sure ICR2-3D is pretty quick, but this is not only fluid, but luscious
too. Never mind GP2. So it looks like I'll be taking a little hiatus
from my 97 GP2 season to enjoy myself with NFS2. (damned that this came
in the middle of my exams...)

Hope you'll enjoy it too,

Stanley Chan

by **John Wallac** » Fri, 18 Apr 1997 04:00:00

F1 car at Hockenheim = 208 - 217mph which is 333 - 344kph...

Otherwise, thanks for the review. Sounds like NFS2 might be a fun
distraction.

by **Torgeir Fos** » Fri, 18 Apr 1997 04:00:00

> > No
> > other game gives you the feel of 300+kph (which is faster than an F1 car
> > down Hockenheim, is this for real?)

> F1 car at Hockenheim = 208 - 217mph which is 333 - 344kph...

> Otherwise, thanks for the review. Sounds like NFS2 might be a fun
> distraction.

Coulthard was somewhere between 345 and 350 kph in last years Hockenheim
GP.

Torgeir, Norway

by **John Bar** » Sat, 19 Apr 1997 04:00:00

> >Hi,
> >Just spent 3 hours with NFS2. Kudos to EA Sports on a job well done. The
> >graphics are mind-blowing.

> <snipped Stanley's glowing review of NFS2>

> Stanley, while I am happy that you are enjoying NFS2, I am afraid that you
> will be one of the few to praise this _incredibly_ lame sequel of a "brilliant" game.
> I, too, was e***d about this sequel. I loved NFS.

> *My thoughts:
> Frame Rate = O.K.-POOR (my system=P166/MatroxMill/32MB/512KPLBC/M3D)
> Graphics = O.K. if you like arcade tracks as opposed to the original NFS.
> Track Design = POOR (Silly).... actually, _incredibly_ poor and silly.
> Driveability = POOR in comparison to NFS.
> Player immersion/Suspension of disbelief/***iveness = SLIM to NONE
> Value = 'nuf sed

> Any comparison to the original NFS/GP2/ICR2 etc. etc. are ridiculous. This
> is an arcade game and a VERY BAD arcade game to boot.

> * My prediction of Game Magazine reviews:
> - Average overall rating = 3/5 stars or 65% ( I may be overly optimistic )
> - Reasons for the 'zines rating will be as mentioned above, and a comparison
> to the very nice original NFS.
> - Comments will be made about the major (failed) attempt at arcade-i-ness and the poor framerate.
> - Another gripe will be the value of the game in comparison to other available titles.

> * My final advice: Avoid it like the plague, _particularly_ if you liked original NFS
> and were hoping for more of the same.
> - If you want arcade driving now. Buy POD or MTM. Actually, just buy POD.
> - If you want more realism, buy ICR2/Nascar2/GP2 or the ORIGINAL version of NFS.
> - If you want to wait for something new, look for X-Car / Psygnosis F1 / Carmageddon .

> MyTwoCents
> ______________________________________________________________

> *** I know it's true because I heard it on Usenet! ***

> NOTE!! - PLEASE REMOVE "NOSPAM" from my address to email me.
> ______________________________________________________________

Hi,

I would have to agree what a disappointment it is. At least they let
you "paint" your car with a different color. I liked the split screen
racing mode so you could race somebody without another computer, but I
imagine you would need Stanley's machine to run this with all the
details set to "high".

NFS II could be called Screamer 3, but that would be insulting to
Screamer 2. NFS II belongs in the same class (dumpster) with Test
Drive:Off Road.

John Bard

by **Justin Rya** » Sat, 19 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Actually once you get the steering down it can be a fun game. You really
have to throw the cars into the turns(except the lotus gt1) The cars
steering is controlled more by your throttle inputs and braking than
actually carving a turn with the wheel only. The steering is still alittle
quick for me but I'm getting used to it.

BTW Who are these people in the Track Records screens cause they are
slow!!! The only ones faster than my times are the records in arcade mode!

by **Kevi** » Sat, 19 Apr 1997 04:00:00

> >Hi,
> >Just spent 3 hours with NFS2. Kudos to EA Sports on a job well done. The
> >graphics are mind-blowing.

> <snipped Stanley's glowing review of NFS2>

> Stanley, while I am happy that you are enjoying NFS2, I am afraid that you
> will be one of the few to praise this _incredibly_ lame sequel of a "brilliant" game.
> I, too, was e***d about this sequel. I loved NFS.

> *My thoughts:
> Frame Rate = O.K.-POOR (my system=P166/MatroxMill/32MB/512KPLBC/M3D)
> Graphics = O.K. if you like arcade tracks as opposed to the original NFS.
> Track Design = POOR (Silly).... actually, _incredibly_ poor and silly.
> Driveability = POOR in comparison to NFS.
> Player immersion/Suspension of disbelief/***iveness = SLIM to NONE
> Value = 'nuf sed

> Any comparison to the original NFS/GP2/ICR2 etc. etc. are ridiculous. This
> is an arcade game and a VERY BAD arcade game to boot.

> * My prediction of Game Magazine reviews:
> - Average overall rating = 3/5 stars or 65% ( I may be overly optimistic )
> - Reasons for the 'zines rating will be as mentioned above, and a comparison
> to the very nice original NFS.
> - Comments will be made about the major (failed) attempt at arcade-i-ness and the poor framerate.
> - Another gripe will be the value of the game in comparison to other available titles.

> * My final advice: Avoid it like the plague, _particularly_ if you liked original NFS
> and were hoping for more of the same.
> - If you want arcade driving now. Buy POD or MTM. Actually, just buy POD.
> - If you want more realism, buy ICR2/Nascar2/GP2 or the ORIGINAL version of NFS.
> - If you want to wait for something new, look for X-Car / Psygnosis F1 / Carmageddon .

> MyTwoCents
> ______________________________________________________________

> *** I know it's true because I heard it on Usenet! ***

> NOTE!! - PLEASE REMOVE "NOSPAM" from my address to email me.
> ______________________________________________________________

I'd have to agree with you. As much as I loved NFS, this is not even
close to being as good. On a Micron P200 with 32MB of RAM, Diamond
Stealth with 4MB and a 12X CD the frame rate sucks so badly that its
almost unplayable. After the money I spent on this computer I don't
feel like I should have to turn down any graphic settings. I don't know
if its EA's fault or Windows 95's (I hate Win95 for games), but I'm
taking this one back.

by **Mr Bil** » Sat, 19 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Thanks for the sales pitch Buddy, Now I know it Must suck.
Will not be buying any ***from EA, sorry.
Nice job on NHL97 BTW...hehe.. NOT!!! More crap.

Mr Bill

by **Kevin & Lee An** » Sun, 20 Apr 1997 04:00:00

> > >Hi,
> > >Just spent 3 hours with NFS2. Kudos to EA Sports on a job well done. The
> > >graphics are mind-blowing.

> > <snipped Stanley's glowing review of NFS2>

> > Stanley, while I am happy that you are enjoying NFS2, I am afraid that you
> > will be one of the few to praise this _incredibly_ lame sequel of a "brilliant" game.
> > I, too, was e***d about this sequel. I loved NFS.

> > *My thoughts:
> > Frame Rate = O.K.-POOR (my system=P166/MatroxMill/32MB/512KPLBC/M3D)
> > Graphics = O.K. if you like arcade tracks as opposed to the original NFS.
> > Track Design = POOR (Silly).... actually, _incredibly_ poor and silly.
> > Driveability = POOR in comparison to NFS.
> > Player immersion/Suspension of disbelief/***iveness = SLIM to NONE
> > Value = 'nuf sed

> > Any comparison to the original NFS/GP2/ICR2 etc. etc. are ridiculous. This
> > is an arcade game and a VERY BAD arcade game to boot.

> > * My prediction of Game Magazine reviews:
> > - Average overall rating = 3/5 stars or 65% ( I may be overly optimistic )
> > - Reasons for the 'zines rating will be as mentioned above, and a comparison
> > to the very nice original NFS.
> > - Comments will be made about the major (failed) attempt at arcade-i-ness and the poor framerate.
> > - Another gripe will be the value of the game in comparison to other available titles.

> > * My final advice: Avoid it like the plague, _particularly_ if you liked original NFS
> > and were hoping for more of the same.
> > - If you want arcade driving now. Buy POD or MTM. Actually, just buy POD.
> > - If you want more realism, buy ICR2/Nascar2/GP2 or the ORIGINAL version of NFS.
> > - If you want to wait for something new, look for X-Car / Psygnosis F1 / Carmageddon .

> > MyTwoCents
> > ______________________________________________________________

> > *** I know it's true because I heard it on Usenet! ***

> > NOTE!! - PLEASE REMOVE "NOSPAM" from my address to email me.
> > ______________________________________________________________

> I'd have to agree with you. As much as I loved NFS, this is not even
> close to being as good. On a Micron P200 with 32MB of RAM, Diamond
> Stealth with 4MB and a 12X CD the frame rate sucks so badly that its
> almost unplayable. After the money I spent on this computer I don't
> feel like I should have to turn down any graphic settings. I don't know
> if its EA's fault or Windows 95's (I hate Win95 for games), but I'm
> taking this one back.

My mistake. Unlike MTM or I76, you have to change your desktop settings
to 640 x 480 before starting the game. Once I figured that out
framerate was fine.

by **Todd Walk** » Mon, 21 Apr 1997 04:00:00

You are absolutely right. Once I figured that out, the game became
much more fun. I actually like that aspect because that is the way
that mid or rear engine cars actually behave. That is the main reason
that the Porsche 911 was my favorite car to drive in NFS1. I too
disliked the game when I first got it because it was not as much like
the first one as I thought it was going to be. But after playing it
for almost a week, I have to say that I like it better than NFS. The
sounds are still lame, but the driving model is good and the sensation
of speed is excellent. You just have to give it a chance. I think
that if another company had released it under another name and it was
not connected with the first NFS in any way, people would be raving
about it. It just isn't what a lot of people expected.

by **Kodi** » Tue, 22 Apr 1997 04:00:00

>* My final advice: Avoid it like the plague, _particularly_ if you liked original NFS
> and were hoping for more of the same.
>- If you want arcade driving now. Buy POD or MTM. Actually, just buy POD.
>- If you want more realism, buy ICR2/Nascar2/GP2 or the ORIGINAL version of NFS.
>- If you want to wait for something new, look for X-Car / Psygnosis F1 / Carmageddon .

Well, this righteous 3d owner thinks it's ludicrous for them to ignore
the 3d card market. I guess they just expect that their customers to
have a P200 and higher to achieve decent framerates...

I have no intention of buying a racing sim that doesn't support my
R3D.

--kodiak

---

[space is for spammers... sentients wishing to respond should take out any spaces in my address]

by **Jason R Smi** » Tue, 22 Apr 1997 04:00:00

IS NFS2 WIN95 ONLY?????

>> >Hi,
>> >Just spent 3 hours with NFS2. Kudos to EA Sports on a job well done. The
>> >graphics are mind-blowing.

>> <snipped Stanley's glowing review of NFS2>

>> Stanley, while I am happy that you are enjoying NFS2, I am afraid that you
>> will be one of the few to praise this _incredibly_ lame sequel of a "brilliant" game.
>> I, too, was e***d about this sequel. I loved NFS.

>> *My thoughts:
>> Frame Rate = O.K.-POOR (my system=P166/MatroxMill/32MB/512KPLBC/M3D)
>> Graphics = O.K. if you like arcade tracks as opposed to the original NFS.
>> Track Design = POOR (Silly).... actually, _incredibly_ poor and silly.
>> Driveability = POOR in comparison to NFS.
>> Player immersion/Suspension of disbelief/***iveness = SLIM to NONE
>> Value = 'nuf sed

>> Any comparison to the original NFS/GP2/ICR2 etc. etc. are ridiculous. This
>> is an arcade game and a VERY BAD arcade game to boot.

>> * My prediction of Game Magazine reviews:
>> - Average overall rating = 3/5 stars or 65% ( I may be overly optimistic )
>> - Reasons for the 'zines rating will be as mentioned above, and a comparison
>> to the very nice original NFS.
>> - Comments will be made about the major (failed) attempt at arcade-i-ness and the poor framerate.
>> - Another gripe will be the value of the game in comparison to other available titles.

>> * My final advice: Avoid it like the plague, _particularly_ if you liked original NFS
>> and were hoping for more of the same.
>> - If you want arcade driving now. Buy POD or MTM. Actually, just buy POD.
>> - If you want more realism, buy ICR2/Nascar2/GP2 or the ORIGINAL version of NFS.
>> - If you want to wait for something new, look for X-Car / Psygnosis F1 / Carmageddon .

>> MyTwoCents
>> ______________________________________________________________

>> *** I know it's true because I heard it on Usenet! ***

>> NOTE!! - PLEASE REMOVE "NOSPAM" from my address to email me.
>> ______________________________________________________________
>I'd have to agree with you. As much as I loved NFS, this is not even
>close to being as good. On a Micron P200 with 32MB of RAM, Diamond
>Stealth with 4MB and a 12X CD the frame rate sucks so badly that its
>almost unplayable. After the money I spent on this computer I don't
>feel like I should have to turn down any graphic settings. I don't know
>if its EA's fault or Windows 95's (I hate Win95 for games), but I'm
>taking this one back.

by **Todd Walk** » Wed, 23 Apr 1997 04:00:00

>IS NFS2 WIN95 ONLY?????

Yes. Unfortunately. I think that is the primary source of the slow
graphics. Win95 promised to be such a great *** OS and it just
ain't so.

**********************************************
Todd Walker

T-Type on IRC
Homepage: http://www.racesimcentral.net/
1986 Buick Regal T-Type
**********************************************

by **Mark Smi** » Wed, 23 Apr 1997 04:00:00

YES - which is good and bad. IT did finally make me go in and configure my
wheel properly in Win95

by **Justin Rya** » Wed, 23 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Very true Todd. People need to play the game for longer than 30 min. to
really feel the potential of the car models. It can be quite fun, I just
wish the 911turbo was in it!!!

by **Ray Wan** » Thu, 24 Apr 1997 04:00:00

i am really satisfied with nfs2's speed in win95. i am running on p166,
matrox mill, 32mb ram ... and it has very good framerate with everything
turned on! (that's with traffic .. etc) dunno what everybody is ***ing
about!

nfs2 is a good sequel ... it's just the tracks that suck! car feel &
stats need some improvement. maybe EA should've consulted Road & Track
(like NFS) to get better car dynamics, etc...

--ray

rec.autos.simulators

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

NFS2 - BRILLIANT!