... a featherlite modified, over at gamespot! Two, in fact. I'm kinda
excited about that. Maybe they're borrowing a good idea from Dirt to
Daytona. Unfortunately, the preview doesn't give any real info about
what's going to be excluded in the PC version...as they always do. The
consoles, at least, will get more micro-management than ever before with
such things as maintaining friendships and fan loyalty.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/driving/nascarthunder2005/screenindex.html
I pray that both PC and console offerings give consumers the same things
for once. But I seriously doubt it if the past is any indicator. And why
Tiburon insists on trying to topple Papyrus' domination, I'll never
know. I, personally, didn't buy Thunder 2004 (I'm guilty of renting it
for the PS2, tho) for any systems because of their Thunder 2003 PC
release. Yet I'll probably buy the PC version of this one, and if it
sucks...I won't buy the next release.
It's also kind of funny in a way. Companies complain that game sales for
the PC can't compare to consoles, yet the gameplay on consoles is more
fun. Prime example being NASCAR Thunder. PS2 version is fun, PC version
isn't. Is it so difficult for a developer to add both realistic physics
/and/ gameplay? Or is that NASCAR simmers are so hardcore, so
inflexible, in their ways that they prefer to smite actual gameplay in
such games?
-Will
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:35:27 -0500, William Bradshaw
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>... a featherlite modified, over at gamespot! Two, in fact. I'm kinda
>excited about that. Maybe they're borrowing a good idea from Dirt to
>Daytona. Unfortunately, the preview doesn't give any real info about
>what's going to be excluded in the PC version...as they always do.
The console version and the PC version are being made by the same team
this year (Tiburion) whereas last year ISI made the PC one. I would
be surprised if the PC version weren't exactly like the console one
this year, aside from the delay in the release date so that they can
get caught up with programming it.
>"William Bradshaw" <[email hidden]> wrote
> http://www.gamespot.com/pc/driving/nascarthunder2005/screenindex.html
Those shots are fugly. All the textures are low-res, and very pixelated
(check out the lettering of "WAY" in that second shot, or the textures on
the cars are impossible to read). Even the poly count seems low, if you
check the modified.
They look as advanced as those of Burnout in 1998. Flat, dull and grey.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/nascar-thunder-2005/521296p1.html?fromint=1
"William Bradshaw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (27 lines)
> ... a featherlite modified, over at gamespot! Two, in fact. I'm kinda > excited about that. Maybe they're borrowing a good idea from Dirt to > Daytona. Unfortunately, the preview doesn't give any real info about > what's going to be excluded in the PC version...as they always do. The > consoles, at least, will get more micro-management than ever before with > such things as maintaining friendships and fan loyalty. > > http://www.gamespot.com/pc/driving/nascarthunder2005/screenindex.html > > I pray that both PC and console offerings give consumers the same things > for once. But I seriously doubt it if the past is any indicator. And why > Tiburon insists on trying to topple Papyrus' domination, I'll never > know. I, personally, didn't buy Thunder 2004 (I'm guilty of renting it > for the PS2, tho) for any systems because of their Thunder 2003 PC > release. Yet I'll probably buy the PC version of this one, and if it > sucks...I won't buy the next release. > > It's also kind of funny in a way. Companies complain that game sales for > the PC can't compare to consoles, yet the gameplay on consoles is more > fun. Prime example being NASCAR Thunder. PS2 version is fun, PC version > isn't. Is it so difficult for a developer to add both realistic physics > /and/ gameplay? Or is that NASCAR simmers are so hardcore, so > inflexible, in their ways that they prefer to smite actual gameplay in > such games? > > > -WillOn Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:50:00 -0400, "BClay" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/nascar-thunder-2005/521296p1.html?fromint=1
>
>Here's the juicy bit:
Hawkins: As mentioned earlier, we are developing the game internally
at the Tiburon studio in sunny Florida. The team includes veterans
from Papyrus, creators of the critically acclaimed NASCAR Racing
series, veterans from Image Space Incorporated, the developers of
Sports Car GT and the critically acclaimed F1 series, as well as
experienced staff from the other hit games developed here. The team is
a great mix of experience and enthusiasm built to create the NASCAR
game that PC gamers are waiting for.
Jason Moyer wrote:
Sounds like a good deal to me, and I hope you're right. It's better that
they're all on the same page when making the PC variant. 'Course looking
at the GameSpy interview that BClay posted this morning, I don't like
the following Q&A:
----
GameSpy: Will this title be much different than the console games? If
so, how much?
Hawkins: We're focusing exclusively on features that PC gamers have
requested. Especially vehicle dynamics, physics, the latest rules and
full field online racing.
----
If that's all they're going to offer, and I'll wait until the reviews
pour in next year, I probably won't buy it. As much as I want better AI
and gameplay, I'll stick with NR2003.
-Will
Quoted text (15 lines)
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:35:27 -0500, William Bradshaw > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>... a featherlite modified, over at gamespot! Two, in fact. I'm kinda >>excited about that. Maybe they're borrowing a good idea from Dirt to >>Daytona. Unfortunately, the preview doesn't give any real info about >>what's going to be excluded in the PC version...as they always do. > > > The console version and the PC version are being made by the same team > this year (Tiburion) whereas last year ISI made the PC one. I would > be surprised if the PC version weren't exactly like the console one > this year, aside from the delay in the release date so that they can > get caught up with programming it.ymenard wrote:
Yeah, that's true. Then again, I prefer gameplay over graphics. They're
nice to look at if you have the system to show all of those polys (which
I don't, hehe). :)
In that same screenshot, the track looks a lot grittier, though. Apart
from the "WAY" text, the walls look nice.
Maybe those are PS2 shots?
-Will
Quoted text (12 lines)
>>"William Bradshaw" <[email hidden]> wrote >>http://www.gamespot.com/pc/driving/nascarthunder2005/screenindex.html > > > > Those shots are fugly. All the textures are low-res, and very pixelated > (check out the lettering of "WAY" in that second shot, or the textures on > the cars are impossible to read). Even the poly count seems low, if you > check the modified. > > > They look as advanced as those of Burnout in 1998. Flat, dull and grey.BClay wrote:
> http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/nascar-thunder-2005/521296p1.html?fromint=1
That part I don't like hearing:
---
GameSpy: Will this title be much different than the console games? If
so, how much?
Hawkins: We're focusing exclusively on features that PC gamers have
requested. Especially vehicle dynamics, physics, the latest rules and
full field online racing.
---
The way I translate it is: "We're focusing exclusively on features that
PC gamers had in NASCAR Racing 2003."
Does the racing community really need another NASCAR Racing clone? Maybe
I'm way off target here....
-Will
If we are going to have a future continuing forward with Nascar sims, I sure
hope so ... They have to start somewhere. Nascar 2003 Season is not the end
all of sims. There is still room for improvement with anything ...
"William Bradshaw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Does the racing community really need another NASCAR Racing clone? Maybe
> I'm way off target here....
>
>
> -Will
>
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:25:17 -0400, "Phillip Malphrus, Jr."
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>If we are going to have a future continuing forward with Nascar sims, I sure
>hope so ... They have to start somewhere. Nascar 2003 Season is not the end
>all of sims. There is still room for improvement with anything ...
Yea, and I got lambasted here when I said EA will keep digging at
their Nascar games until it is better than the Papyrus game. And it
will happen too.
Phillip Malphrus, Jr. wrote:
> If we are going to have a future continuing forward with Nascar sims, I sure
> hope so ... They have to start somewhere. Nascar 2003 Season is not the end
> all of sims. There is still room for improvement with anything ...
You're right, of course. NR2003 could have been improved upon, yet
Tiburon has some mighty big shoes to fill. And if Thunder 2003 & 2004
(the latter being a sample from the demo), EA has failed in doing so.
One thing that has irritated me to no end about Thunder was the lack of
interesting AI and strange physics. Even the Thunder '04 demo is guilty
on both counts, if it's any measure of the full version. NR2003, guilty
on the former.
Perhaps what I'm asking for is impossible, but I'm sure a lot of the
guys there are really intelligent and could pull these things off.
Here's what I suggest (it's all entirely my opinion):
All of the physics programmers, track creators and graphics guys need to
get actual seat time in whatever car(s) they're modelling. The physics
guys would get an idea of the feel they need to shoot for, and the
graphics guys would have a great source to make the title visually
emulate reality. The track creators would also know what is exactly
wrong with their current track models.
From there, I'd follow the path that the Papy dev's did: get in touch,
for fee or free, with a Cup team engineer and get piles of info and
input. The gentleman who went out of his way to help Papyrus deserves
praise, and more companies oughta go that route to make their games more
realistic. What NR2003 has become, thanks to this engineer, is
absolutely stunning.
For believability (is that even a word?), the track guys need to get
themselves straightened out. Tell 'em to play NR2002 or 2003, go visit
the real tracks, get them on-board videos, /something/...because the
track models they push out the door are complete manure.
Once again, for fee or free, get a bunch of hardcore simmers (include
those with actual racing experience) to alpha and beta test the product.
If it were my show, I'd want their advice during the real development
phase. Then it would be easier to make changes to the code early on,
instead of having the idea of a "re-write" as a road block during the
beta testing.
Better AI needs to be implimented. I don't know about anyone else, but
I'm pretty darn tired of racing against AI who don't intentionally push
me around. If I'm constantly moving the car in front of me around, I
expect the AI to lose "patience" with me or get "angry". If I'm blocking
the car behind me, same thing. Is there a legitimate reason why don't I
see cars drafting me if I'm quicker? That doesn't sound very realistic
to me. A few 3D shooters have AI that are pretty slick, working as a
team to eliminate you or to achieve a goal. I don't see why NASCAR PC
titles have to be neglected in this area in favor of online play.
The gameplay (career mode and whatnot) isn't a big issue code-wise, IMO.
---
Even though I think NASCAR titles need to go farther, we've really come
a long way with Papyrus. We have physics that closely resemble that of
driving a stock car, tire models close to reality, realistic tracks, AI
who race eachother, superb netcode and the list goes on.
Some might say that I want a Papyrus clone, and that really isn't the
case. Papyrus did a lot of things right. A logical and easy to navigate
menu system, a menu from within the race view itself, quick loading
times, F# buttons to control well thought status screens (such as live
timing), a fully functional replay studio, etc etc. Thunder needs a dose
of common sense in its structure, and as they say "Imitation is the best
form of flattery." Why reinvent the wheel when it gets the job done
perfectly?
If EA can't match those things for the targeted crowd, the hardcore
players, then they're just pissing away a portion of their NASCAR
license. Ever since Thunder 2003, that's been their target IIRC.
I'll be bold and say that they haven't converted many NASCAR Racing
fans. And until they analyze and understand why Papyrus was so
successful among the hardcore NASCAR simmers, EA is merely wasting
money. When it comes to what the hardcore guys and gals want, it's a
simulator with realistic physics. Papyrus, on that count, wins hands down.
-Will, who's adding his $20 into the opinion pot
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 02:08:47 -0500, William Bradshaw
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>-Will, who's adding his $20 into the opinion pot
If all you can say positive about NR2003 is the menu system, then that
was a wasted $20.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
Andrew wrote:
Perhaps you missed the following part I wrote?
"Even though I think NASCAR titles need to go farther, we've really come
a long way with Papyrus. We have physics that closely resemble that of
driving a stock car, tire models close to reality, realistic tracks, AI
who race eachother, superb netcode and the list goes on."
Per the menu system, it is without a doubt, one of the best out there.
There isn't clutter and everything is organized in a logical manner.
And, gosh darn it, we get access to a menu while driving. Thunder needs
such a thing. Perhaps they think players wouldn't need to fine-tune
settings while in the game? It's something that makes sense, it's
useful, and isn't like asking them for a real-time weather system.
-Will
Quoted text (9 lines)
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 02:08:47 -0500, William Bradshaw > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>-Will, who's adding his $20 into the opinion pot > > > If all you can say positive about NR2003 is the menu system, then that > was a wasted $20.On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 02:08:47 -0500, William Bradshaw
<[email hidden]> wrote something like:
>Perhaps what I'm asking for is impossible, but I'm sure a lot of the
>guys there are really intelligent and could pull these things off.
>Here's what I suggest (it's all entirely my opinion):
There's probably only one thing standing in the way of EA making it's
NT series more realistic: money. The NT series has been selling rather
well as it is, and now it's the only Nascar game in the market. So why
would they put more money in the development knowing that by doing so
they would only achieve marginal sales growth?
--
Jussi 'Igor' Koukku
