Andretti Racing by EA

I saw a commercial on TV for this today. Something new coming out by EA. Los

> I saw a commercial on TV for this today. Something new coming out by EA. > Los I do believe it is only for Playstation. You can check out pics of it at WWW.EA.COM

> > I saw a commercial on TV for this today. Something new coming out by EA. > > Los > I do believe it is only for Playstation. You can check out pics of it at > WWW.EA.COM It's really, really bad. Doesn't even attempt to model the physics of a car. This is a crime for EA Sports, who have developed such a reputation for realism and attention to detail. Ridge Racer has much more realistic physics and playability than Mario Andretti Racing.

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > I saw a commercial on TV for this today. Something new coming out by EA. > > > Los > > I do believe it is only for Playstation. You can check out pics of it at > > WWW.EA.COM > It's really, really bad. Doesn't even attempt to model the physics > of a car. This is a crime for EA Sports, who have developed such a > reputation for realism and attention to detail. > Ridge Racer has much more realistic physics and playability than > Mario Andretti Racing.

It's not meant to try to be a Nascar Racing. It's fun still. -- B.J. Vosti #1 John Andretti Fan

:> :> > :> > I saw a commercial on TV for this today. Something new coming out by EA. :> > :> > Los :> I do believe it is only for Playstation. You can check out pics of it at :> WWW.EA.COM : :It's really, really bad. Doesn't even attempt to model the physics :of a car. <snip> That's why it's affiliated with the Andretti's. ***************************** * Michel de Rooij *****************************

<< It's really, really bad. Doesn't even attempt to model the physics of a car. This is a crime for EA Sports, who have developed such a reputation for realism and attention to detail. Ridge Racer has much more realistic physics and playability than Mario Andretti Racing.>> This is so much bull. As someone who owns IndyCar 2, Nascar, GP2, Ridge Racer and Andretti and has spent many hours with all of them, the above can be discarded for the nonsense which it is. a) Yes it does attempt to model the physics of the cars. Wing balance affects cornering, and you can recover loose conditions with opposite lock and it looks and feels every bit as good as it does in IndyCar and GP2. The cars are grippier and faster than a real simulation would pit them, which definitely was done to make the game more approachable. I would call the physics exaggerated when it comes to grip & horsepower, but they are well modelled within the exaggerated grip/horsepower. b) Ridge Racer's so called realistic physics. What a joke. Ridge Racer lets you powerslide around curves with no loss of speed whatsoever no matter how severe the slide. When you hit something or do something that should result in a spin, you are generally auto-corrected by the Ridge Racer engine, with little loss of speed. If you brake for a turn and then get back on the gas, you will immediately begin sliding. The solution in Ridge Racer is to hold down the gas constantly and left-foot brake (this can be done with analog controllers or the digital pad). c) Ridge Racer's "playability". Ridge Racer has one track with extensions and mirror modes to grant some artificial 'diversity' to it. Andretti has 16 different tracks and 2 different kinds of cars you can drive (Indy/Stock). You have pit stops, tire wear and cars that can go airborne, as well as spin outs, etc. The computer cars also get together and sometimes put each other out of the race. None of this happens in Ridge Racer. Ridge Racer is a completely unrealistic quarter-popping arcade experience. The physics in Andretti, while exaggerated with extra grip & horsepower, are very well done, and has a very good IndyCar racing 'feel'. On a scale of 0 to 10 where 0=total arcade (aka Ridge Racer) and 10=GP2/IndyCar/Nascar, I'd rate Andretti about a 6.5....certainly closer to a sim than an arcade racer from a physics and car 'driveability' standpoint. Its also the most fun I've had with a racer in awhile. Randy

Quoted text (8 lines)

> << It's really, really bad. Doesn't even attempt to model the physics > of a car. This is a crime for EA Sports, who have developed such a > reputation for realism and attention to detail. Ridge Racer has much more > realistic physics and playability than Mario Andretti Racing.>> > This is so much bull. As someone who owns IndyCar 2, Nascar, GP2, Ridge > Racer and Andretti and has spent many hours with all of them, the above > can be discarded for the nonsense which it is.

Well - you're certainly entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong. ;) I meant exactly what I said. I have a few other friends that play NASCAR, Indycar I and II, Sega Rally, NFS, etc. etc. and they were in total agreement about the lack of physics. Just because wing balance affects cornering and opposite lock helps straighten out a loose situation doesn't mean that the game has a good physics model. Any game can fake that. Real driving physics comes in with weight transfer and the feel that weight transfer creates (and how it changes handling dynamically). Andretti does not have this feel to it at all. Ridge Racer isn't realistic at all - that's true, and that's exactly why I used it as the lowest common denominator that I placed over Andretti. At least Ridge Racer has some element of weight transfer and handling, even if it is utterly unrealistic as to how it actually handles it. Even NFS - being another arcade racer - has much more physics realism than Andretti.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You're kidding about EA, right? I've never been impressed by the AI in their NHL, NBA, baseball, and Madden games. -- +-------------------+----Insight Football League Webpage----+ | G. Warren Abao | http://users.southeast.net/~wabao/ifl | +-------------------+ BBL Jacksonville Jaguars 8-1 |'Phins!| | SPOOOOOOOOOOON!!! | IFL Jacksonville Bulls 11-7 |Yankees| +-------------------+--Front Page Sports Football---+-------+

Well Enzo: Your review of Andretti racing 97 for the playstation is lacking in almost every respect. Is the bias a result of not owning a console? But I am sure that you will attest to the fact you do. Also, atleast try and get the name of the game correct. It is not called Mario Andretti Racing! The A.I. of the cars is extremely intelligent and the game play factor nicely balances the benefits of an arcade racer with the realism of a sim. The frame rate is extremely smooth without the added expence of requiring a pentium computer. I am with Randy on this. The more I play Andretti, the more ***ive it becomes. It is without a doubt one of the finest racing games to appear on any system, including the PC. Indycar II is a good sim, but with all respect it is just that, a sim! Gw

Nice cheap shot, but you assume that the person to whom you're responding knows what he's talking about. Randy

snip : Ridge Racer isn't realistic at all - that's true, and that's exactly : why I used it as the lowest common denominator that I placed over : Andretti. At least Ridge Racer has some element of weight transfer : and handling, even if it is utterly unrealistic as to how it actually : handles it. Even NFS - being another arcade racer - has much more : physics realism than Andretti. Funny, I saw Mario himself on TV hyping up his game, how it's the best one he's played, etc etc. Hey Mario, get a PC and play some real car sims! I'm sure glad that the store was out of stock on Ridge Racer when I bought my PSX. I rented it first, and I didnt like it too much. The handling really threw me off (literally). I couldnt believe everyone was hyping this game so much, especially if my 84 Celebrity had better handling characteristics than these cars in the game. Physics model? Try Tokyo Highway Battle for the PSX. Hahahaha. I can hear the fart mufflers blowing by. It's a PSX limitation, I believe. They dont have the processing power to simulate an accurate physics model. The PC might get grainier graphics, slow 3d-rendering, etc. but handling physics sure is coded well (by most). I wonder how the car physics on the PSX Need for Speed compares to the PC version? Anyone played both?

Quoted text (15 lines)

> :> > :> > > :> > I saw a commercial on TV for this today. Something new coming out by EA. > :> > > :> > Los > :> I do believe it is only for Playstation. You can check out pics of it at > :> WWW.EA.COM > : > :It's really, really bad. Doesn't even attempt to model the physics > :of a car. > <snip> > That's why it's affiliated with the Andretti's. > Yeah thats why Mario is recognised as the best in the sport and his son just came in

second in points at the end of the season, may I remind you with several wins! I don't give a flyin' rat ass if your an Andretti hater, but know the facts chump! signed Knowitall > * Michel de Rooij > *****************************

NASCAR, Indycar I and II, Sega Rally, NFS, etc. etc. and they were in total agreement about the lack of physics. Just because wing balance affects cornering and opposite lock helps straighten out a loose situation doesn't mean that the game has a good physics model. Any game can fake that. Real driving physics comes in with weight transfer and the feel that weight transfer creates (and how it changes handling dynamically). >> Sorry, but I just don't see it. If you corner too hard in Andretti, you'll lose grip. If you go into a turn too hot, you'll experience a push. If you change the balance of the car with wings, you can compensate to some extent, but at the cost of speed. This is all realistic. Just because you don't graphically see the car leaning from side to side doesn't mean squat. You don't lean side to side in IndyCar either. The first you know you're transfering too much weight is tire squeal as your tires lose grip. Are you going to say that because IndyCars in ICR2 aren't leaning around on their suspension that the game doesn't model weight transfer? The problem with your post is that the way you judge the effects of weight transfer is wrong. The effects of weight transfer in Andretti are somewhat diminished by the incredible amount of extra grip you get in the car compared to the real thing, but the effects of weight transfer are clearly evident, as are the effects of brake locking when your speed drops to the point where you aren't getting enough downforce (grip) on the front wheels while applying maximum braking. I have yet to read anything in your post that substantiates your claim that there is a lack of weight transfer physics in Andretti, or that Andretti somehow has a worse physics model than Ridge Racer, which truly has no physics model other than leaning the cars during hard corners. Randy

>becomes. It is without a doubt one of the finest racing games to appear >on any system, including the PC. Indycar II is a good sim, but with all >respect it is just that, a sim! Therein lies the difference between us all: sim vs game qualities. Gregory Fung Vancouver, B.C., Canada IICC3 Rebel Alliance Lola/Ford/Firestone ITCC Player's Ltd. Audi A4

Hey Greg... you may remember me from IICC. Well, I'm having a blast with Andretti & the wheel. Great adrenalin rush, super-aggressive AI drivers, bumpy roads, brakes that actually lock up realistically, super-textured graphics, better engine sounds, and high speed make Andretti a blast, even if you don't take it quite as seriously as IndyCar II. IndyCar II needs a serious graphics shot in the arm and I'd be in hog heaven. Randy

Take a look at the 3D accelerated Rendition version that will be shipping with the Intergraph Reactor3D card in early October. A screenshot is available at: [link lost in import] -- Emory University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences Nascar Setups Page: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~ebusch/

Quoted text (14 lines)

>:> >:> > >:> > I saw a commercial on TV for this today. Something new coming out by EA. >:> > >:> > Los >:> I do believe it is only for Playstation. You can check out pics of it at >:> WWW.EA.COM >: >:It's really, really bad. Doesn't even attempt to model the physics >:of a car. ><snip> >That's why it's affiliated with the Andretti's.

Heh heh. Well put.