Everybody seems to be talking about F1 2001 as a better sim than GPL
in this Newsgroup. I have F1 2001 and Formula One 2001 on my PS2, and
the Sony version is so much more realistic than EA's offering. I have
also played F1 2001 on PC to check that it is the same game as the PS2
version (and it is).
Why is everybody praising this game so much? I like it a lot, but as a
GPL beater?
Nick.
I'm surprised you found the Sony version more realistic on the PS2. I
thought the EA was more realistic of the two but hardly very realistic
compared to the PC.
The PC version is NOT the same as the PS2 version. I'm certain of this
having read it somewhere (which escapes me at this moment but it was from
the "source" so to speak) and having played both extensively. There are
clear differences in track lay out, physics model, controller set-up, FF
effects, driving AI, overall presentation and more. These games, other than
sharing the same title, couldn't be more different.
BTW, the PC version with the ALMS GT car add-on (free) is the Gran Turismo
of the PC (with better graphics, AI, and physics). ;o)
--
Joe Marques
"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Everybody seems to be talking about F1 2001 as a better sim than GPL
> in this Newsgroup. I have F1 2001 and Formula One 2001 on my PS2, and
> the Sony version is so much more realistic than EA's offering. I have
> also played F1 2001 on PC to check that it is the same game as the PS2
> version (and it is).
>
> Why is everybody praising this game so much? I like it a lot, but as a
> GPL beater?
>
> Nick.
F1 2001 on the PS2 is not the same game as the PC version. There may be
some superficial similarities, but it was done by a totally different
development team, and as far as I know nobody has ever publicly
acknowledged how much, if any, information was shared between the two
teams. I have both the PC version, and the Xbox version. The Xbox
version was a straight port from the PS2 version and therefore I will
just refer to it as the console version. The physics are clearly
different; for example the console version has much more effective
brakes than the PC version. The tracks are clearly different. The
console version has semi-auto gearchange and traction control, the PC
version has a choice of either auto or manual gearchange, and a
"throttle help" feature that does not seem to function the same way as
real life traction control. I much prefer the PC version due to its
more realistic physics and due to the fact that I do not yet have a
wheel for the Xbox. However I think the console version is in some ways
a better representation of how an F1 vehicle is equipped, it may have
better track modelling, and it definitely has better graphics. Now I am
curious, what is it that you think is better about the Sony version?
"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (10 lines)
> Everybody seems to be talking about F1 2001 as a better sim than GPL > in this Newsgroup. I have F1 2001 and Formula One 2001 on my PS2, and > the Sony version is so much more realistic than EA's offering. I have > also played F1 2001 on PC to check that it is the same game as the PS2 > version (and it is). > > Why is everybody praising this game so much? I like it a lot, but as a > GPL beater? > > Nick.Wow, almost everybody who has played both the Sony and EA F1 titles on the
PS2 (myself included) far prefer the EA effort.
Why did you like the Sony game more?
"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:a8ag79$r2j2u$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (33 lines)
> F1 2001 on the PS2 is not the same game as the PC version. There may be > some superficial similarities, but it was done by a totally different > development team, and as far as I know nobody has ever publicly > acknowledged how much, if any, information was shared between the two > teams. I have both the PC version, and the Xbox version. The Xbox > version was a straight port from the PS2 version and therefore I will > just refer to it as the console version. The physics are clearly > different; for example the console version has much more effective > brakes than the PC version. The tracks are clearly different. The > console version has semi-auto gearchange and traction control, the PC > version has a choice of either auto or manual gearchange, and a > "throttle help" feature that does not seem to function the same way as > real life traction control. I much prefer the PC version due to its > more realistic physics and due to the fact that I do not yet have a > wheel for the Xbox. However I think the console version is in some ways > a better representation of how an F1 vehicle is equipped, it may have > better track modelling, and it definitely has better graphics. Now I am > curious, what is it that you think is better about the Sony version? > > > "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Everybody seems to be talking about F1 2001 as a better sim than GPL > > in this Newsgroup. I have F1 2001 and Formula One 2001 on my PS2, and > > the Sony version is so much more realistic than EA's offering. I have > > also played F1 2001 on PC to check that it is the same game as the PS2 > > version (and it is). > > > > Why is everybody praising this game so much? I like it a lot, but as a > > GPL beater? > > > > Nick. >The console version of F1-2001 is horrible. I played it for a few laps at
the USGP last year and there were TONs of canned spins, and the general
graphics were bad. I have the 989 F1 game that you talk about and while some
of the tracks are better, it still has the same canned stuff as the other
PS2 F1 "sims."
-Stuart Becktell
"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (10 lines)
> Everybody seems to be talking about F1 2001 as a better sim than GPL > in this Newsgroup. I have F1 2001 and Formula One 2001 on my PS2, and > the Sony version is so much more realistic than EA's offering. I have > also played F1 2001 on PC to check that it is the same game as the PS2 > version (and it is). > > Why is everybody praising this game so much? I like it a lot, but as a > GPL beater? > > Nick.Stuart,
I was at the USGP last year, and if you're talking about the trailer that
was set up with a PS2's and a F1 game, that was Sony/989's Formula One 2001,
not EA's F1 2001. If you actually DID play the EA product, you must have
played a pre-release level of the game, as the graphics in the PS2 title and
the PC are virtually identical. According to the EA web site, the games'
code is almost identical, with different applications teams chosen to
implement the PC and PS2 version due to the differences in each platform's
hardware and software.
BTW, the console Vs. PC debate is a very, very old one and I for one am
tired of everybody dismissing console racers as wannabe's. Having logged
hundreds of hours on both types of systems, the ONLY benefit I can see of a
PC-based sim Vs a console on is the "patch-ability" of a PC system. On the
other hand, many of these "patches" fix software that should never have been
released. Plus, when is the last time anybody had a driver (sound card,
graphics card, etc) conflict or an XP/2000/98/95 conflict, or even the
dreaded BSOD you get so often with Windows on a PS2? Sure, more "kids" play
consoles than play on PC's, but get off your high horses fella's. In the
days of the Nintendo 64 and before you might have had a leg to stand on, but
since the PS2 was released and certainly the XBox, game performance has been
at least on a par with PC.
Having a system that is 100% dedicated to gaming (pick it: XBox, PS2, or
whatever) allows users to use it only for that purpose. No need to worry
about all of the other crap that a PC needs to be concerned with. Granted,
not many game developers take advantage of this hardware dedication, but I
can't for the life of me see how anybody who has played both the PC version
of F1 2001 and the PS2 version can tell me they are THAT different.
"Stuart Becktell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:g28q8.57969$8%[email hidden]...
> The console version of F1-2001 is horrible. I played it for a few laps at
> the USGP last year and there were TONs of canned spins, and the general
> graphics were bad. I have the 989 F1 game that you talk about and whilesome
Quoted text (17 lines)
> of the tracks are better, it still has the same canned stuff as the other > PS2 F1 "sims." > -Stuart Becktell > "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Everybody seems to be talking about F1 2001 as a better sim than GPL > > in this Newsgroup. I have F1 2001 and Formula One 2001 on my PS2, and > > the Sony version is so much more realistic than EA's offering. I have > > also played F1 2001 on PC to check that it is the same game as the PS2 > > version (and it is). > > > > Why is everybody praising this game so much? I like it a lot, but as a > > GPL beater? > > > > Nick. > >I KNOW that it was EA's F1-2001. It was technically a pre-release since the
console version was going to be released a couple days later. It was located
in the McLaren/SAP tent. The graphics are similar, but it is pretty easy to
see where the PS2 is dumbed down.
I don't want to get into a holy war about consoles, but the biggest reason
people call console racers wannabe's is that many of them use a game pad or
joystick, and can not see that this isn't realistic. I also know some (not
saying all of them) that think that because they played the car in GT3, it
is therefore "easy" to drive a WRC car at speed.
-Stuart Becktell
