Re: NFS PU vs GPL

On Mon, 8 May 2000 14:54:22 -0400, "mindgazer" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Anyone has an opinion on NFS PU? Is it any more realistic than the previous >versions? Yes, it's completely redone, much more realistic. >For comparison, I think that GPL is the most realistic game I played so far. NFS PU is the "GPL of arcade games". In other words, it's designed as a fun, arcade game. It has a very realistic - but *accessible* - physics model.

I tried NFS High Stakes before - physics was total crap. Anyone has an opinion on NFS PU? Is it any more realistic than the previous versions? For comparison, I think that GPL is the most realistic game I played so far. Driving Nurenbwatchamacallit track in GPL is unbelievable fun.

"mindgazer" <[email hidden]> wrote: > I tried NFS High Stakes before - physics was total crap. > Anyone has an opinion on NFS PU? Is it any more realistic than > the previous versions? > I really love GPL and I consider NFS-PU to be great fun, though it does have it's problems. For instance: --Running hard on the brakes into a banked curve can flip the car. Totally bogus. --I run 100% front and 0% rear downforce, plus full negative front wheel toe and a fully rear brake bias just to get the car to steer. --Throttle steering is totally different than GPL. Line adjustments are trailing-throttle adjustments made during corner entry, rather than a combination of that plus feathering-throttle adjustments during the corner exit as in GPL. --Chopping the throttle mid-corner will result in wild oversteer (which I would fully expect) with most Porsche models (the original '78 turbo is EXTREMELY challenging to go fast in), but full-on trail braking deep into the corner (even with full rear brake bias) just results in understeer. It's only that on-off throttle transition that really can be tricky. --The car tends to feel as if it has been adjusted to be neutral to pushy under all conditions except trailing-throttle (I'll accept that this could be a trait of the rear-engined Porsche. I've never driven one in real life). --The AI need work. They display (in my opinion) typical arcade logic. They're agressive to downright obnixious when trying to pass you and will bump you out of thier way, they're MUCH slower entering a corner than you, and you can ALWAYS catch them with a top speed run even if your car is a notch below theirs in power. This last trait, though, could be a function of my 0% rear downforce increasing my top speed. Maybe the AI uses 75% rear downforce. Now that I've griped a bit, I find NFS-PU to be very entertaining. The driving model is worlds ahead of the model used in NFS-High Stakes, though I'd put it a notch below Viper Racing, and I truly enjoy the tracks that are included. Zone Industrielle is a blast! Also, doing a single person race with all AI using your car results in better AI competitiveness. The graphics are superb and the engine sounds are truly a cut above. I was very pleasantly surprised by the overall quality of the game. NFS-High Stakes really disappointed me. BTW, I've still got the original NFS on my hard drive.... -Chris- Previous 1984 GPz 750 Previous 1989 ZX-10 Previous 1992 ZX-7 Previous 1998 ZX-9 Current 2000 CBR929RR Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Okay, you asked for it -- this is something of a compilation of my comments about NFSPU: I think NFSPU is in the same league as Viper Racing and GPL -- NFSPU does an excellent job of modeling high-performance, rear-engine, sports cars, just like Viper Racing does an excellent job of modeling a front- engine, rear-drive, V-10-equipped sports car, and the same way that GPL does an excellent job of modeling a mid-engine, open-wheel, lightweight, purpose-built 1967-vintage GP race car. To me, the cars in NFSPU respond as convincingly as a GP car in GPL. I've done 4-wheel drifts in roadgoing cars before, and the responses in NFSPU seem realistic to me. I don't recommend it as the fast way around a track, necesarily, but it does speak well for the physics engine. I've heard some talk about some aspects of NFSPU being "canned" effects (like wrecks, for example), but I would dispute this -- nothing seems canned to me, and I've wrecked plenty. <G> The cars in NFSPU respond very much like a real car would -- more than can be said for any previous NFS game, and many other would-be "sims." GPL definitely gets these kinds of physics modeling details right, and I think NFSPU has also done a good job in its own right. The older eras in Evolution Mode reminds me a lot of what a "Porsche Legends" game would be like (more in- line with "Grand Prix Legends," if you will), while the more modern models have something of a "Porsche GT" feel (more along the lines of "Sports Car GT," which I never really warmed up to). This is especially true of the modern-era racing models -- the modern roadgoing (non-race) models seem to have a better "feel" to me. If you like GPL, then you'll most likely love the 550 Spyder in NFSPU -- it's a powerful, sweet-handling ride, and I am still learning to master it (and loving every minute of it!). I haven't had this much fun learning to control a virtual vehicle since GPL, Viper Racing, or DTR. In fact, the vehicle dynamics of the 550 Spyder remind me more of a 1967 GP car than a Viper or a Late-Model -- you can't toss a Viper or a LM into a 4-wheel drift, hang the tail out, and steer with the throttle like you can with the 550 Spyder in NFSPU;only GPL offers this level of thrills and vehicle dynamics. This is probably because NFSPU and GPL are both modeling vehicles with low-adhesion bias-ply tires, as opposed to sticky, modern rubber, but, again and again, I find myself thinking of GPL while behind the wheel of the 550 Spyder. The main difference between a GP car in GPL and the 550 Spyder in NFSPU seems to be that the 550 Spyder feels somewhat more "tame," which is EXACTLY what I would expect a 550 Spyder to feel like in comparison to a 1967-vintage GP car. FYI, in addition to NFSPU (which has been consuming almost all of my simulated wheel time), my personal favorites include GPL, Viper Racing, DTR, and ICR2. I was into SCGT for a while, but the physics modeling just didn't feel right to me. I find NFS3 and NFS4 to be somewhat amusing as an occasional diversion, but the physics modeling pretty much leaves me cold in both instances. I find the tracks in NFSPU to be enjoyable in the same way that I like just "driving" the "Nurenbwatchamacallit" track in GPL (it's WAY too long for me to "race," but I do enjoy a "fast Sunday drive" there from time to time). I think you'll find the tracks in NFSPU sufficiently enjoyable -- especially in a 550 Spyder. Hope this helps. Grab the demo and see for yourself, but keep in mind that there's a LOT that the demo can't show you (Evolution Mode, Factory Driver Mode, the 550 Spyder, the "Moby Dick," etc.). -- JB In article <8f72go$9o3$[email hidden]>, "mindgazer" <[email hidden]> wrote: > I tried NFS High Stakes before - physics was total crap. > Anyone has an opinion on NFS PU? Is it any more realistic than theprevious > versions? > For comparison, I think that GPL is the most realistic game I playedso far. > Driving Nurenbwatchamacallit track in GPL is unbelievable fun. > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Chris, I think NFSPU does a great job in the graphics department, delivering good frame rates at higher resolutions, but I think the physics model suffers more than we realize when the graphics are set at "eye-candy" levels, so humor me and try the following as an experiment -- I've done this with good results, but I'd like a second (informed) opinion: 1) Set your in-game graphics resoultion to 640 x 480. 2) Reduce the various graphics settings to a tolerable level. I use "MED" for the car detail level, "LOW" sky detail, "MAX" (or whatever the level above "HIGH" is called) for the draw distance, "LOW" or "MED" lighting, and "MED" for world detail level, for example, and I'm running an AMD K6-2 400 with 64 MB of RAM and a 16 MB Creative Labs Voodoo Banshee card. 3) Grab a 550 Spyder and see if it feels any different with the reduced graphics and improved framerate. I've got something of a mid-range computer system, so adjust your settings as you see fit, but the point is to reduce the graphics load to see how the physics modeling feels with a much-improved framerate. I did this out of curiousity and to help improve online play (I always race online with lower graphics settings), but after trying it, I almost always use a lower resolution because I think it really "unleashes" the physics engine. If you get a chance to give this a try, let me know -- for me, I found that the physics engine really surprised me when I stripped away a bit of the eye-candy. The affect on in-game throttle response and steering inputs really surprised me, so LMK what you think if you try it. -- JB In article <8f77h4$13$[email hidden]>, Chris Cavin <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > "mindgazer" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > I tried NFS High Stakes before - physics was total crap. > > Anyone has an opinion on NFS PU? Is it any more realistic than > > the previous versions? > > > > I really love GPL and I consider NFS-PU to be great fun, though it

does

Quoted text (8 lines)

> have it's problems. For instance: > > --Running hard on the brakes into a banked curve can flip the car. > Totally bogus. > --I run 100% front and 0% rear downforce, plus full negative front > wheel toe and a fully rear brake bias just to get the car to steer. > --Throttle steering is totally different than GPL. Line adjustments > are trailing-throttle adjustments made during corner entry, rather

than > a combination of that plus feathering-throttle adjustments during the > corner exit as in GPL. > --Chopping the throttle mid-corner will result in wild oversteer(which > I would fully expect) with most Porsche models (the original '78 turbo > is EXTREMELY challenging to go fast in), but full-on trail brakingdeep

Quoted text (16 lines)

> into the corner (even with full rear brake bias) just results in > understeer. It's only that on-off throttle transition that really can > be tricky. > --The car tends to feel as if it has been adjusted to be neutral to > pushy under all conditions except trailing-throttle (I'll accept that > this could be a trait of the rear-engined Porsche. I've never driven > one in real life). > --The AI need work. They display (in my opinion) typical arcade > logic. They're agressive to downright obnixious when trying to pass > you and will bump you out of thier way, they're MUCH slower entering a > corner than you, and you can ALWAYS catch them with a top speed run > even if your car is a notch below theirs in power. This last trait, > though, could be a function of my 0% rear downforce increasing my top > speed. Maybe the AI uses 75% rear downforce. > > Now that I've griped a bit, I find NFS-PU to be very entertaining.

The > driving model is worlds ahead of the model used in NFS-High Stakes, > though I'd put it a notch below Viper Racing, and I truly enjoy the > tracks that are included. Zone Industrielle is a blast! Also, doinga

Quoted text (17 lines)

> single person race with all AI using your car results in better AI > competitiveness. The graphics are superb and the engine sounds are > truly a cut above. I was very pleasantly surprised by the overall > quality of the game. NFS-High Stakes really disappointed me. BTW, > I've still got the original NFS on my hard drive.... > > -Chris- > > Previous 1984 GPz 750 > Previous 1989 ZX-10 > Previous 1992 ZX-7 > Previous 1998 ZX-9 > Current 2000 CBR929RR > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy. >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

mindgazer wrote: > > I tried NFS High Stakes before - physics was total crap. > Anyone has an opinion on NFS PU? Is it any more realistic than the previous > versions? > For comparison, I think that GPL is the most realistic game I played so far. It's nowhere near GPL, but it's a nice diversion. Right up there with Colin McRae Rally on my list. -- Anssi

>>>NFS PU is the "GPL of arcade games".<<< That's one of the best ways I've heard it put yet, Joe -- well-said. Still, I have problems calling NFSPU an "arcade" game; I've found several other "sims" to be much less engrossing, enjoyable, and convincing than NFSPU. I think that NFSPU is probably realistic enough that it could possibly be used to teach a non-driver some basic, rudimentary driving skills. That spells "sim" to me. Also, as far as the driving experience goes, I relate a sim experience to a good movie -- if I can totally suspend disbelief to the point that I can be convinced that the on-screen action actually IS real (or could be, anyway), and if nothing in the plot "kicks me out" of the experience, then it's just plain good. So it goes with a sim -- if I flinching when I hit something, leaning into a turn (as mentioned in another thread), shakeing my fist at traffic, or looking to the side to see the car I just passed when I know darned good and well that the only action to see is on the monitor in front of me, THEN I feel like I've become immersed in a SIM experience, not a simple game. NFSPU does this for me, much to my delight. For me, "arcade" implies "game," and I think NFSPU is much more than that -- like maybe the "GPL of sports cars," perhaps. It's definitely the closest thing we've seen to date, aside from Viper Racing, anyway. But, since it ain't GPL, since it doesn't have the GPL physics engine, and since Papy didn't even pat it on the butt, much less bless it with Holy Water, I guess I'll just be happy for the acknowledgement that "NFS PU is the GPL of arcade games." ;-) -- JB In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Joe McGinn) wrote: > On Mon, 8 May 2000 14:54:22 -0400, "mindgazer" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Anyone has an opinion on NFS PU? Is it any more realistic than theprevious > >versions? > > Yes, it's completely redone, much more realistic. > > >For comparison, I think that GPL is the most realistic game I playedso far. > > NFS PU is the "GPL of arcade games". In other words, it's designed as > a fun, arcade game. It has a very realistic - but *accessible* - > physics model. > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

I already run at 640x480. I've always preferred speed over resolution. The only time I get a noticable slow down is when there are several AI driving around in front of me. Monaco is worst. > Chris, > > I think NFSPU does a great job in the graphics department, delivering > good frame rates at higher resolutions, but I think the physics model > suffers more than we realize when the graphics are set at "eye-candy" > levels, so humor me and try the following as an experiment -- I'vedone > this with good results, but I'd like a second (informed) opinion: > > 1) Set your in-game graphics resoultion to 640 x 480. > 2) Reduce the various graphics settings to a tolerable level. I use > "MED" for the car detail level, "LOW" sky detail, "MAX" (or whatever > the level above "HIGH" is called) for the draw distance, "LOW"or "MED" > lighting, and "MED" for world detail level, for example, and I'm > running an AMD K6-2 400 with 64 MB of RAM and a 16 MB Creative Labs > Voodoo Banshee card. > 3) Grab a 550 Spyder and see if it feels any different with thereduced

Quoted text (14 lines)

> graphics and improved framerate. > > I've got something of a mid-range computer system, so adjust your > settings as you see fit, but the point is to reduce the graphics load > to see how the physics modeling feels with a much-improved framerate. > > I did this out of curiousity and to help improve online play (I always > race online with lower graphics settings), but after trying it, I > almost always use a lower resolution because I think it really > "unleashes" the physics engine. > > If you get a chance to give this a try, let me know -- for me, I found > that the physics engine really surprised me when I stripped away a bit > of the eye-candy. The affect on in-game throttle response and

steering

Quoted text (26 lines)

> inputs really surprised me, so LMK what you think if you try it. > > -- JB > > In article <8f77h4$13$[email hidden]>, > Chris Cavin <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > "mindgazer" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > I tried NFS High Stakes before - physics was total crap. > > > Anyone has an opinion on NFS PU? Is it any more realistic than > > > the previous versions? > > > > > > > I really love GPL and I consider NFS-PU to be great fun, though it > does > > have it's problems. For instance: > > > > --Running hard on the brakes into a banked curve can flip the car. > > Totally bogus. > > --I run 100% front and 0% rear downforce, plus full negative front > > wheel toe and a fully rear brake bias just to get the car to steer. > > --Throttle steering is totally different than GPL. Line adjustments > > are trailing-throttle adjustments made during corner entry, rather > than > > a combination of that plus feathering-throttle adjustments during

the > > corner exit as in GPL. > > --Chopping the throttle mid-corner will result in wild oversteer > (which > > I would fully expect) with most Porsche models (the original '78turbo > > is EXTREMELY challenging to go fast in), but full-on trail braking > deep > > into the corner (even with full rear brake bias) just results in > > understeer. It's only that on-off throttle transition that reallycan > > be tricky. > > --The car tends to feel as if it has been adjusted to be neutral to > > pushy under all conditions except trailing-throttle (I'll acceptthat > > this could be a trait of the rear-engined Porsche. I've neverdriven > > one in real life). > > --The AI need work. They display (in my opinion) typical arcade > > logic. They're agressive to downright obnixious when trying to pass > > you and will bump you out of thier way, they're MUCH slowerentering a > > corner than you, and you can ALWAYS catch them with a top speed run > > even if your car is a notch below theirs in power. This last trait, > > though, could be a function of my 0% rear downforce increasing mytop

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > speed. Maybe the AI uses 75% rear downforce. > > > > Now that I've griped a bit, I find NFS-PU to be very entertaining. > The > > driving model is worlds ahead of the model used in NFS-High Stakes, > > though I'd put it a notch below Viper Racing, and I truly enjoy the > > tracks that are included. Zone Industrielle is a blast! Also,

doing

Quoted text (22 lines)

> a > > single person race with all AI using your car results in better AI > > competitiveness. The graphics are superb and the engine sounds are > > truly a cut above. I was very pleasantly surprised by the overall > > quality of the game. NFS-High Stakes really disappointed me. BTW, > > I've still got the original NFS on my hard drive.... > > > > -Chris- > > > > Previous 1984 GPz 750 > > Previous 1989 ZX-10 > > Previous 1992 ZX-7 > > Previous 1998 ZX-9 > > Current 2000 CBR929RR > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > > Before you buy. > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy. >

-- -Chris- Previous 1984 GPz 750 Long, long, long ago: 1989 ZX-10 Only a little long ago: 1992 ZX-7 Darn near yesterday: 1998 ZX-9 Waiting not so patiently: 2000 CBR929RR Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

A little addendum to my post of a couple of minutes ago. I've never really had a problem controlling the cars or felt that the game model doesn't respond quickly enough to what I ask of it. I will turn down some of the detail level and see if it makes a difference, but I doubt I was running slow enough before to affect my gameplay. My criticism stems from the over-the-limit behavior of the cars. I get the impression that the game model is biased moderatly to heavily (depending on the car model used) towards understeer during acceleration, and biased moderatly towards understeer during heavy braking. That's not to say that under the right circumstances you can't snap the tail out, because I have, usually when braking and transitioning from side to side. It's just that I end up 90% of the time understeering off the side of the road when I've exceeded the traction limits. The times I tail-wag the car are almost always induced by rapid side-to-side transitions, or extreme unweighting of the wheels when cresting a hill or a road crown. I think only one time have I induced power-on oversteer, and that was in the GT1. Now, keep in mind that I'm speaking from the perspective of somebody who's spent the last 1-1/2 years driving GPL almost exclusively. I may be criticising an inherent trait of a rear-engined car. In all liklihood, the physics engine is quite good. It may be the tire modeling that fails to live up to my expectations. The tire model is what ultimately gives the virtual driver most of his virtual feel. I'll finish up by saying again that I am truly enjoying NFS-PU. I think that it treads the line between GPL like realism and every-man type ease and appeal quite well, even if biased a bit towards the latter more than I would prefer. I'll let you know if reducing the graphics gives me any different feel. -Chris- Previous 1984 GPz 750 Long, long, long ago: 1989 ZX-10 Only a little long ago: 1992 ZX-7 Darn near yesterday: 1998 ZX-9 Waiting not so patiently: 2000 CBR929RR > Chris, > > I think NFSPU does a great job in the graphics department, delivering > good frame rates at higher resolutions, but I think the physics model > suffers more than we realize when the graphics are set at "eye-candy" > levels, so humor me and try the following as an experiment -- I'vedone > this with good results, but I'd like a second (informed) opinion: > > 1) Set your in-game graphics resoultion to 640 x 480. > 2) Reduce the various graphics settings to a tolerable level. I use > "MED" for the car detail level, "LOW" sky detail, "MAX" (or whatever > the level above "HIGH" is called) for the draw distance, "LOW"or "MED" > lighting, and "MED" for world detail level, for example, and I'm > running an AMD K6-2 400 with 64 MB of RAM and a 16 MB Creative Labs > Voodoo Banshee card. > 3) Grab a 550 Spyder and see if it feels any different with thereduced

Quoted text (14 lines)

> graphics and improved framerate. > > I've got something of a mid-range computer system, so adjust your > settings as you see fit, but the point is to reduce the graphics load > to see how the physics modeling feels with a much-improved framerate. > > I did this out of curiousity and to help improve online play (I always > race online with lower graphics settings), but after trying it, I > almost always use a lower resolution because I think it really > "unleashes" the physics engine. > > If you get a chance to give this a try, let me know -- for me, I found > that the physics engine really surprised me when I stripped away a bit > of the eye-candy. The affect on in-game throttle response and

steering

Quoted text (26 lines)

> inputs really surprised me, so LMK what you think if you try it. > > -- JB > > In article <8f77h4$13$[email hidden]>, > Chris Cavin <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > "mindgazer" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > I tried NFS High Stakes before - physics was total crap. > > > Anyone has an opinion on NFS PU? Is it any more realistic than > > > the previous versions? > > > > > > > I really love GPL and I consider NFS-PU to be great fun, though it > does > > have it's problems. For instance: > > > > --Running hard on the brakes into a banked curve can flip the car. > > Totally bogus. > > --I run 100% front and 0% rear downforce, plus full negative front > > wheel toe and a fully rear brake bias just to get the car to steer. > > --Throttle steering is totally different than GPL. Line adjustments > > are trailing-throttle adjustments made during corner entry, rather > than > > a combination of that plus feathering-throttle adjustments during

the > > corner exit as in GPL. > > --Chopping the throttle mid-corner will result in wild oversteer > (which > > I would fully expect) with most Porsche models (the original '78turbo > > is EXTREMELY challenging to go fast in), but full-on trail braking > deep > > into the corner (even with full rear brake bias) just results in > > understeer. It's only that on-off throttle transition that reallycan > > be tricky. > > --The car tends to feel as if it has been adjusted to be neutral to > > pushy under all conditions except trailing-throttle (I'll acceptthat > > this could be a trait of the rear-engined Porsche. I've neverdriven > > one in real life). > > --The AI need work. They display (in my opinion) typical arcade > > logic. They're agressive to downright obnixious when trying to pass > > you and will bump you out of thier way, they're MUCH slowerentering a > > corner than you, and you can ALWAYS catch them with a top speed run > > even if your car is a notch below theirs in power. This last trait, > > though, could be a function of my 0% rear downforce increasing mytop

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > speed. Maybe the AI uses 75% rear downforce. > > > > Now that I've griped a bit, I find NFS-PU to be very entertaining. > The > > driving model is worlds ahead of the model used in NFS-High Stakes, > > though I'd put it a notch below Viper Racing, and I truly enjoy the > > tracks that are included. Zone Industrielle is a blast! Also,

doing

Quoted text (22 lines)

> a > > single person race with all AI using your car results in better AI > > competitiveness. The graphics are superb and the engine sounds are > > truly a cut above. I was very pleasantly surprised by the overall > > quality of the game. NFS-High Stakes really disappointed me. BTW, > > I've still got the original NFS on my hard drive.... > > > > -Chris- > > > > Previous 1984 GPz 750 > > Previous 1989 ZX-10 > > Previous 1992 ZX-7 > > Previous 1998 ZX-9 > > Current 2000 CBR929RR > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > > Before you buy. > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy. >

-- Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

NFSPU is a entirely new game compared to HS. HS had garbage physics with cars floating diagonally across the road. I played it but never liked it that much. I will never play HS again after PU. PU has 4 point physics. The feel is excellent for the "very sim-lite" category. The 4 wheel drive porches feel very different from the rear drive which can fish tail easily. The diversity across models is also obvious. Additionally, the upgrades have a distinct impact to the speed/handling/stability of the cars. The FF on my LWFF combined with the new physics give me a satisfying sense of feel and control that it unmatched by any other game I own. The physics are less realistic than Viper (which has good physics but BOOORING gameplay) and nowhere near GPL, however, it's the most fun game I've driven in years. I can't get enough of it. The evolution mode is like Gran Turismo where you earn $ buy upgrades and new cars. I'm working towards a 2000 turbo, moby dick racer and GT1 racer. The factory driver mode is mission oriented and very addictive yet not frustrating. You have to complete either a difficult driving maneuver, deliver a car unscathed, or win a challenging race. Multiplayer was solid for a friend and I via cable modems. Overall it's one of the best driving games I've played. Unlike GPL (the best ever made) it doesn't feel like work. For me it's a welcomed break from hardcore driving. It's thrilling, fast and fun. -- Joe Marques mindgazer <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8f72go$9o3$[email hidden]... > I tried NFS High Stakes before - physics was total crap. > Anyone has an opinion on NFS PU? Is it any more realistic than the previous > versions? > For comparison, I think that GPL is the most realistic game I played so far. > Driving Nurenbwatchamacallit track in GPL is unbelievable fun. > >

[email hidden] wrote: >Still, I have problems calling NFSPU an "arcade" game; I've found >several other "sims" to be much less engrossing, enjoyable, and >convincing than NFSPU. I think that NFSPU is probably realistic enough >that it could possibly be used to teach a non-driver some basic, >rudimentary driving skills. That spells "sim" to me. I know what you mean. The reason I put in in the arcade genre is more because it is so brilliantly balanced, gameplay-wise, that arcaders will have great fun with it. The use of easy tracks and cars at first gently eases the player into the game. But in terms of pure technology you are right, it realy is a simulation. It is one of those rare games that both crowds can really enjoy. GPL, by comparison, is a great simulation, but for most people a very poor video game. >But, since it ain't GPL, since it doesn't have the GPL physics engine, >and since Papy didn't even pat it on the butt, much less bless it with >Holy Water, I guess I'll just be happy for the acknowledgement that >"NFS PU is the GPL of arcade games." Hey, I'm sure EA doesn't care either way, they'll be happy with half a million or more sales. ;-) Joe McGinn _____________________ Radical Entertainment