NFS II .Yes or no ?

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I didn`t notice to much comments about NFS II around here.Why is that ? > In my oppinion the game sucks,NFS I is a way better.Not to mention GP2 or > ICR2.So ,I am very disapointed with game. > Maybe somebody can point me on good things in NFS II which I maybe didn`t > saw for mayself....... > marko

If the game was anything like the intro it would kick ass but it pretty much sucks.Everything but the actual game play is good.

That's becuase the LAST name of this group is SIMULATORS and NFS2 is 100% PURE ARCADE. There is nothing SIM about it - no damage - no rules - no AI. It is great as a multimedia performance car encyclopedia but as a game it rank up there with SEGA RALLY. POD is more of a simulation than NFS2.

>>I didn`t notice to much comments about NFS II around here.Why is that ? >>In my oppinion the game sucks,NFS I is a way better.Not to mention GP2 or >>ICR2.So ,I am very disapointed with game. >>Maybe somebody can point me on good things in NFS II which I maybe didn`t >>saw for mayself....... Well Personally I Can't Stand the Game, with the Exception of three Points: -Your In-Car Full Time - No Flying out to a Bird's Eye View when you Turn Around - I Like the NFS2's Network Support Better Than NFS SE's Network Support - And I Like the Fact that There is a Lotus V8 (Unfortunatly Its the Slowest Car in the Game Which Means that the Car won't get the respect it deserves. Cheers, Kris

>Well, racing in traffic is pretty cool, and better than the >original. No way - there was NOTHING like the original NFS 1, racing in and out of traffic on a long winding (non-circuit) road while being chased by cops. I had a couple replays saved of long chases that played more like a movie than an arcade game. NFS 2 has none of that. Joe

>I didn`t notice to much comments about NFS II around here.Why is that ? >In my oppinion the game sucks,NFS I is a way better.Not to mention GP2 or >ICR2.So ,I am very disapointed with game. >Maybe somebody can point me on good things in NFS II which I maybe didn`t >saw for mayself....... There were several reviews posted when the game first game out. People have understandably since lost interest in this under-achiever. Here is a copy of my review: Need For Speed II Review =================== Graphics/Visuals: B+ The graphics and tracks are very flashy, lot's of nice scenery (e.g., in the Vancouver track you can see familiar landmarks like the Science World geodisic dome, BC place, Skytrain). They lose some marks because of lack of realism though - the original NFS tracks were in some ways more visually impressive because they seemed like real places. Most of the NFS2 tracks (the Vancouver one being an exception) seem more like "fantasy tracks". New 3D Engine: D- A hyped new feature that is an extreme disappointment is the new 3D graphics engine. As many people have pointed out, they've just replaced the "invisible walls" in the original NFS with "visible walls" in NFS2. There is almost no freedom of movement, even less than in the sorta-3D Road Rash. The only new feature the 3D engine has allowed is driving around the tracks backwards (big deal), and the cost is overall game performance I'd estimate at about 1/2 of the original NFS. The original NFS could play at very high framerates with all graphics on in hi-res on a P133. NFS II is *barely* playable on a P200, and then only by turning the graphics detail down AND turning off the ***pit. This last is really unacceptable - they are clearly drawing the whole screen and then drawing the***pit over top of it, causing an unusably slow frame-rate even on a P200 with graphic detail set low. And the***pit takes up half the screen with mostly static graphics - even a half-assed attempt at optimization would make it much faster than no-cockpit mode (i.e., since the***pit takes up over half the screen - there are very few actual pixels to redraw witht the***pit on). I can only presume the market-droids at EA insisted on shipping the game before it was optimized (and before D3D support could be added). Another problem: you can stay in your car when you crash and flip, and this is advertised as a feature. But it was actually a lot more fun the old way, where you would get an outside view of crashes. You could really see it much better. Tracks: C- A few of the tracks are OK, but as mentioned they lack both the realistic feel and variety of the original tracks. All would have been forgiven if they'd just included the original tracks too (obviously in a different format, but they could have spent some time on this instead of useless video footage). And since this poor selection of tracks comes with no track editor, there is no chance of the track situation improving through public domain efforts. Sound: B- The environment sound is superb. It changes as you move through a track and is as good or better than any game I've played. However, they lose marks for the pitiful "electric lawn mower" samples it sounds like they used for engines (all of which sound exactly the same to me, another area where the original NFS was superior to NFS II). Car Selection: D- Again, the original NFS was vastly superior. All of the cars in NFS II look, sound, and feel the same (except some are slower or have poorer handling). Basically as far as I'm concerned it comes with one car, the McClaren F1, and there's no reason to choose any other car for any track. The realistic cars of the original NFS (with their vastly different looks, sounds, and driving feels) were a great deal more fun. And since NFS II seems to have an almost identical physics/driving model, I don't see why they didn't include the original cars. They were a lot more fun to drive than the "fantasy cars" of NFS II. Gameplay and Driving Model: C+ There's really not much wrong with the gameplay and driving model for a circa 1995 game. But it is basically unchanged from the original and the world has moved on. They lose big points for not including direct internet multiplay like most modern games do (it may work with KALI, but why should I have to pay for and use complex 3rd-party addons for what other game companies are including in the box?). Replays: F Really, really bad - no rewind, no fast forward. So if you have that one spectacular crash you have to watch the whole race to get to it, and then you can only watch it once. Since the original NFS actually had a much better replay system, I can only give a failing grade to the utterly lame NFS II replay feature. The Final Score: ============ Graphics/Visuals: B+ New 3D Engine: D- Tracks: C- Sound: B- Car Selection: D- Gameplay and Driving Model: C+ Replays: F Overall rating for Need For Speed II: D The Bottom Line: ============= For all the hype and expectations (I personaly loved NFS) NFS II has to rate as the first major *** disappointment of 1997. Should you but NFS II? In a word, no. If you want a great racing game I'd recommend scouring the cheap-bins or second-hand adsfor NFS SE; I really think almost everyone would enjoy that more than NFS II. NFS II is a continuation of a string of disappointing "all eye candy no gameplay" titles from Electronic Arts, who really seem to have lost their touch. Joe

>That's becuase the LAST name of this group is SIMULATORS and NFS2 is 100% PURE >ARCADE. There is nothing SIM about it - no damage - no rules - no AI. It is >great as a multimedia performance car encyclopedia but as a game it rank up >there with SEGA RALLY. Please don't start that nonsense up again - this is the only forum for video driving games of any kind, so arcade drivers as well as sims are (and should be) discussed here. But I do agree NFS 2 is total crap. Joe

I couldn't agree more with everything you wrote.My thoughts exactly, and obviously everybody else around here. To bad for NFS II. It seem that we all will have to wait for something new from Papyrus.They are real and only masters for realistic sims....... marko

I wouldn't go so far as to say it sucks... I've enjoyed the more realistic handling than on NFS1. The hardware requirements have however taxed my 'lil 133 out. I'm hoping that 3D support will happen along. There are codes out there that add a new element as well. I beleive I got them at gamespot. They allow you to drive all the civilian vehicles including the semi cab. All of these vehicles perform and sound like the real thing. In sum, I haven't given up on it yet. Glenn

Quoted text (16 lines)

>> > I didn`t notice to much comments about NFS II around here.Why is that ? >> > In my oppinion the game sucks,NFS I is a way better.Not to mention GP2 or >> > ICR2.So ,I am very disapointed with game. >> > Maybe somebody can point me on good things in NFS II which I maybe didn`t >> > saw for mayself....... >Well, racing in traffic is pretty cool, and better than the >original. The other cars seem to behave more realistically. >Except for when a semi just runs over another car for no >apparent reason. Anyway, I've been playing Pacific Spirit >with the Lotus GT1 in traffic, and been having a pretty >good time (once I got used to the ***y tiny screen I had >to run...) >Jason

Too bad they left out the Cop Car in NFS2, and while we're at it what the hell is the traffic doing driving around on a closed circuit in a circle? Maybe if they had left in the Cop and the Staged Circuits this game could have salvaged some enjoyment, but as it is I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who knows how good it's predecessor was. Cheers. --John (Still playing NFSSE and loving it) -- Note: my real e-mail address is below. Delete the asterisks. ------------------------------+-------------------------- Seattle, Washington USA. | http://www.cool.com/~jsilva

I completely agree with your review of NFS II, very disappointing. However, I wanted to ask a question regarding the comment below on NFS SE. I have NFS and love it. When NFS SE came out, I never bought it because I heard so many reports about unbelievably slow framerates, terrible joystick control, and no support for steering controllers. I assumed this was all because NFS SE was one of the first Win95 games and it had optimization problems. Is this all untrue? Were patches made available that fixed the problems with NFS SE? I remember NFS SE was supposed to have network support, new tracks, and time of day change, so I would love to buy it if it runs better than NFS II. I have a P166 32mb, Intergraph Intense 3D, Monster 3D, TSW steering controller, and I can't play NFS II without turning off some detail. I have heard rumors the there will be a NFS II SE with 3D card support. Of course EA would never give us a "free" patch for anything. Thanks again for the factual NFS II review. Don Chapman

>I wouldn't go so far as to say it sucks... >I've enjoyed the more realistic handling than on NFS1. Funny, I found the exact opposite. I loved the realistic driving model and feel in NFS 1, and I loathed the "go cart feel" of every single car in NFS 2. Joe

Quoted text (7 lines)

>I completely agree with your review of NFS II, very disappointing. >However, I wanted to ask a question regarding the comment below on NFS >SE. I have NFS and love it. When NFS SE came out, I never bought it >because I heard so many reports about unbelievably slow framerates, >terrible joystick control, and no support for steering controllers. I >assumed this was all because NFS SE was one of the first Win95 games >and it had optimization problems. Is this all untrue?

I have NFSSE, but I run the DOS version since the windoze version was too slow on my measly P100 w/ millennium 2M. I suspect that if you purchased NFSSE and installed the DOS version, you'd get comparable performance to what you get with the original NFS. NFS2SE... I can see it. "Now with 3D support"... --kodiak ---- HINT for sentients wishing to email: remove the Xs

I also have a P166 32megs with Matrox Mill, Monster3D, and a T2 wheel, similar to your system. NFSSE runs great on my system, MUCH better than NFS2, and I also have the original NFS, so I can tell you that NFSSE has a few improvements over the original NFS, for one the sound of NFSSE is better than NFS, car engines sound more beefy and realistic, the tracks have rally and mirror modes, and the gameplay is 10 times better than NFS2. I would really recommend NFSSE over NFS2, and I really doubt if you will see any slowdowns at all on your P166, since it runs flawlessly on mine, and I play it all the time. Hope that helps. --John (fan of GP2, ICR2, N2, NFS, Stunts etc.) -- Note: my real e-mail address is below. Delete the asterisks. ------------------------------+-------------------------- Seattle, Washington USA. | http://www.cool.com/~jsilva

Nowhere was it stated that this was to be a 'realistic sim'. I'm not surprised that you are disappointed in the gameplay of NFS2 if that is what you were expecting... =-Rigs-= Rookie Racing Co. A Division of FRESH Racing

Quoted text (18 lines)

>There were several reviews posted when the game first game out. People >have understandably since lost interest in this under-achiever. Here >is a copy of my review: >Need For Speed II Review >=================== >Car Selection: D- >Again, the original NFS was vastly superior. All of the cars in NFS II >look, sound, and feel the same (except some are slower or have poorer >handling). Basically as far as I'm concerned it comes with one car, >the McClaren F1, and there's no reason to choose any other car for any >track. The realistic cars of the original NFS (with their vastly >different looks, sounds, and driving feels) were a great deal more >fun. And since NFS II seems to have an almost identical >physics/driving model, I don't see why they didn't include the >original cars. They were a lot more fun to drive than the "fantasy >cars" of NFS II.

I am in serious doubt of you validality as a 'reviewer'. Most of your 'review' is biased toward NFS1, and your constant nitpicking is disheartening. I have spent some serious time with NFS2 and have to say that the physics/driving model, though not totally realistic, is better than average. This was not intended to be a sim, nor does it pretend to be. All cars, if you carefully look, are different. For instance, the McLaren F1 is faster but the Lotus GT1 (my personal fav) has a better turning radius and overall is easier to handle. There are codes, as mentioned, for the Ford Indigo ( a helluva car ) and all civilian cars. I agree it is sad that the cops were not included, but the decision to include 8 *** cars that many of us will never drive is great. It was decided very early on in the development process not to use the original cars, as the developers were looking for a new feel... Most 'modern' racing games do not include direct internet play, with the exception of POD. To expect this is ludicrious. All I can say is that if more time had been spent playing NFS2, you would've appreciated the little things that make it better than the original... =-Rigs-= Roookie Racing Co. A Division of FRESH Racing

> Nowhere was it stated that this was to be a 'realistic sim'. >I'm not surprised that you are disappointed in the gameplay of NFS2 if >that is what you were expecting... I wasn't, I was just expecting a decent arcade game like NFS 1. NFS 2 utterly failed to deliver the goods. Joe

> I am in serious doubt of you validality as a 'reviewer'. Most >of your 'review' is biased toward NFS1, and your constant nitpicking >is disheartening. I have spent some serious time with NFS2 and have to >say that the physics/driving model, though not totally realistic, is >better than average. But worse than NFS 1. I never expected it to be a sim. You shouldn't have to "look carefully". In NFS 1 the different cars had noticeably and obviously different feels. I don't know why comparing the game to NFS 1 should offend you so - surely it's not too much to expect a sequel to by AT LEAST AS GOOD AS the original? If the degrade the quality in an area I'm sure as hell going to notice and point it out. But again, why did they have to remove the old cars? Why do they have to remove old features to add new ones? I76. There are none. I looked long and hard, and I remind you that I fully expected and WANTED to love NFS 2. But it's just crap. Joe

: >I didn`t notice to much comments about NFS II around here.Why is that ? : >In my oppinion the game sucks,NFS I is a way better.Not to mention GP2 or : >ICR2.So ,I am very disapointed with game. : >Maybe somebody can point me on good things in NFS II which I maybe didn`t : >saw for mayself....... : There were several reviews posted when the game first game out. People : have understandably since lost interest in this under-achiever. Here : is a copy of my review: [deleted] Recently, I found a good way to enjoy NFS II. First, forget compare with NFS I because it seems to be a different type of game. If your machine is not powerful enough, switch to a smaller screen size with interlace display. Change to chase view(big car view). Then you will get the best arcade racer game. Stunning feel in speed. Great graphics. Just play it like Sega Outrunner. Wow! Bernard Shum

Everyone has already said the worst things about NFSII, which I also agree with. The good things IMHO are the 'cheat' codes that let you drive the ordinary 'traffic' cars - i.e. the Volvo 850R wagon, 5 series BM and stuff. R

I have to agree, the ability to drive the traffic cars was probably the best (only?) new idea in NFS2 as compared to NFS. Chris

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Recently, I found a good way to enjoy NFS II. First, forget compare with >NFS I because it seems to be a different type of game. >If your machine is not powerful enough, switch to a smaller screen size >with interlace display. Change to chase view(big car view). Then you will >get the best arcade racer game. Stunning feel in speed. Great graphics. >Just play it like Sega Outrunner. Wow! >Bernard Shum

Ok, what's a reasonable system to run this well? Forget what the box says, what's the 'real world' answer? ________ Eldred Pickett e-mail address altered to deter spammers - remove the '*' to reply Put your message in a modem - and throw it into the ***-sea...

>Ok, what's a reasonable system to run this well? Forget what the box says, >what's the 'real world' answer? P400. Doesn't exist unfortunately. Joe

It works perfect on my P166.

>> Ok, what's a reasonable system to run this well? Forget what the box says, >> what's the 'real world' answer? >It works perfect on my P166. It does not. In fullscreen mode, with the***pit on - the same mode that worked GREAT in NFS 1 - the game is slower than molasses in December, even on a P200. Joe

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >> Ok, what's a reasonable system to run this well? Forget what the box says, > >> what's the 'real world' answer? > >It works perfect on my P166. > It does not. In fullscreen mode, with the***pit on - the same mode > that worked GREAT in NFS 1 - the game is slower than molasses in > December, even on a P200. > Joe

First of all, you've never seen it run on my computer, and I have. I get frame rates comparable to those of NFS. There must be something screwy with your hardware setup. Chris

>First of all, you've never seen it run on my computer, and I have. I've seen it run on several different computers, three of them faster than yours. You do not. Not even close. It is a well-documented fact that NFS 1 is twice as fast as NFS 2 on any computer. Your poor perception (or low standards?) can't change the laws of physics. Joe

Not in fullscreen mode with the***pit on. No way, no how. It's just not possible. Sorry. Joe

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Sorry Joe, but one of us either has a computer running too fast or too > slow. ;-) > Looks like my p200 is running too fast as NFS2 runs great at all > resolutions/detail. No jerkiness or anything. A bit more arcade-like than > NFS1, but great still if u like that sorta thing. > Someone hand me the fire extinguisher, its getting hot in here!!!! > --

Finally!! Somebody else has a computer that can run it on full detail! I thought I was all by my lonesome. Chris

Sorry Joe, but one of us either has a computer running too fast or too slow. ;-) Looks like my p200 is running too fast as NFS2 runs great at all resolutions/detail. No jerkiness or anything. A bit more arcade-like than NFS1, but great still if u like that sorta thing. Someone hand me the fire extinguisher, its getting hot in here!!!! -- Phillip Cunningham Use this address if u want to contact me [header is anti-spammed] >>> Ok, what's a reasonable system to run this well? Forget what the box says, >>> what's the 'real world' answer? >>It works perfect on my P166. >It does not. In fullscreen mode, with the***pit on - the same mode >that worked GREAT in NFS 1 - the game is slower than molasses in >December, even on a P200. >Joe

I have seen so many people say that "you have not seen it run on my computer". Unless you have some computer that was "specially designed for Need For Speed II" then you are smoking crack when you're playing this game. I have a 200MMX machine that I run NFS2 on and it STILL crawls unless I turn down the detail. I also have NFSSE and can play with all detail on with great frame rates. I'm not calling you a liar, well yeah I am, but there is no way in hell that one little computer is going to have these great results that you preach about. Of course, its all relative, and unless youve played the original, you'll never know.

Quoted text (14 lines)

>> >> Ok, what's a reasonable system to run this well? Forget what the box says, >> >> what's the 'real world' answer? >> >It works perfect on my P166. >> It does not. In fullscreen mode, with the***pit on - the same mode >> that worked GREAT in NFS 1 - the game is slower than molasses in >> December, even on a P200. >> Joe >First of all, you've never seen it run on my computer, and I have. I >get frame rates comparable to those of NFS. There must be something >screwy with your hardware setup. >Chris

>Finally!! Somebody else has a computer that can run it on full detail! Anyone can run it at full detail, with the***pit on. You'll just get a terrible fram rate, that's all (even with a P200). Joe

Quoted text (40 lines)

> I have seen so many people say that "you have not seen it run on my > computer". Unless you have some computer that was "specially designed > for Need For Speed II" then you are smoking crack when you're playing > this game. I have a 200MMX machine that I run NFS2 on and it STILL > crawls unless I turn down the detail. I also have NFSSE and can play > with all detail on with great frame rates. I'm not calling you a > liar, well yeah I am, but there is no way in hell that one little > computer is going to have these great results that you preach about. > Of course, its all relative, and unless youve played the original, > you'll never know. > >> >> Ok, what's a reasonable system to run this well? Forget what > the box says, > >> >> what's the 'real world' answer? > >> >It works perfect on my P166. > >> It does not. In fullscreen mode, with the***pit on - the same > mode > >> that worked GREAT in NFS 1 - the game is slower than molasses in > >> December, even on a P200. > >> Joe > >First of all, you've never seen it run on my computer, and I have. I > >get frame rates comparable to those of NFS. There must be something > >screwy with your hardware setup. > >Chrs

You are so full of shit!! How do you know this guy isnt getting good framerates on NFS2 ? I have it running on a K6-166 w/32 meg,stealth 3d2000 and it runs great! So at least goo on your own experience and not say people are lying just because your computer isnt running so great!!!

Why does everyone expect a new game, written for the Pentium, to have a FASTER frame rate than an older game written for 486's??? It has more detail and more work to do. Add in the overhead with DirectX, and you will see some slowdown. I don't see people complaining about Nascar 2, which requires more horsepower to get the same frame rates as Nascar 1. Anyways, a D3D version is supposedly coming out soon. That will help quite a bit. Personally, on my P133 w/ 4M Millenium, I find the frame rate fine with only the sky turned off.

Processor speed alone is no safe measure of whether a game runs good or not. I have a 200mmx with 64Mb of ram and a DS64 video vram graphics card (and a 3dfx card, but that's beside the point with nfs2) and it rips along quite happily. I have tried it on a Cyrix166+ with a 2mb cheapo virge chipset graphics card and it was just about playable. Anything less and, yes, unfortunately it looks like it may be too much. I agree that nfs2 makes far greater demands on the system than nfs1 - definately. I had nfs1 running lovely on a p133 earlier this year. Have fun. Cheers, Dan

> You are so full of shit!! How do you know this guy isnt getting good >framerates on NFS2 ? Because he's seen it running on faster computers, and the game is still unbearably slow. It does not. Joe

Stop feeling sorry for yourself, Joe. ***ing about how you can't run it on your 200 won't solve anything. The chip isn't everything. If you've ever looked inside a computer, you will see more than just a little thingamajig that says Intel Pentium 200 on it. All that other stuff in there does stuff too. Hardware setup is just as important as your chip. Obviously, there is something unique about my settings that makes NFS2 a performer. Of course, you might be running some funky software that's eating up your system's resources. I don't know, I've never seen your system. Lets stop this string before it gets boring for everyone else. Chris

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > You are so full of shit!! How do you know this guy isnt getting good > >framerates on NFS2 ? > Because he's seen it running on faster computers, and the game is > still unbearably slow. > >I have it running on a K6-166 w/32 meg,stealth > >3d2000 and it runs great! > It does not. > Joe

I have asked numerous times for you to post (or tell where to get) something that will report the frame rate. I say mine is fine and so do some other people. Then you come along playing God and say that it is slow. The only way for this thread to die is to either put up or shutup. I do not want, nor do I care about, your field experience or what you have written. If you cannot backup your claims with software, then there is no point in us thinking that you are right. You do not know everything about people systems. I think NFS2 runs great on my system and yet since you cannot get it to run good on your P200, you assume that it will not run good on any system. I hate to inform you that people can have different hardware that can improve performance. You can come back with your 'x years field experience', but that doesn't mean you know what you are talking about. I am not saying that I know what I am talking about. I have talked to people with about the same years field experience as you and some with more and they still do not know that they are talking about. I am not saying that your field experience doesn't mean something, but it is time for proof. I don't care what some magazine says, or your frame rates that you pull out of your head. It's time for this thread to die. This is the only way that I can see for it to die and not pop back up again later. matt --

>your chip. Obviously, there is something unique about my settings that >makes NFS2 a performer. Obviously, you have low enough standards that to YOU it's a performer. To anyone who requires a frame-rate of greater than 15 fps, it is not. Joe

Sony Playstation. sean Sean Slater http://www.jeack.com.au/~sslater/ Melbourne, Australia

Joe, I see your still at it! Until they do a patch so you can use your 3dfx card why don't you try the game with a real video card. That piece of ***ATI card you use just doesn't cut it. NFS2 works great on my 200MMX with 128 Lightspeed with all detail. Although you called me a liar and blind in the past, I suggest you are the one with a problem ie. your ATI Pete

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >your chip. Obviously, there is something unique about my settings that > >makes NFS2 a performer. > Obviously, you have low enough standards that to YOU it's a performer. > To anyone who requires a frame-rate of greater than 15 fps, it is not. > Joe

>Joe, I see your still at it! Until they do a patch so you >can use your 3dfx card why don't you try the game with a real video >card. That piece of ***ATI card you use just doesn't cut it. GMAFB. It is a fact that different 2d cards make only the tiniest difference to performance, not even noticable to most people. And besides, if my video card is so bad why does NFS 1 fly like lightning on it? Answer that one brainiac. Joe

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >Joe, I see your still at it! Until they do a patch so you > >can use your 3dfx card why don't you try the game with a real video > >card. That piece of ***ATI card you use just doesn't cut it. > GMAFB. It is a fact that different 2d cards make only the tiniest > difference to performance, not even noticable to most people. And > besides, if my video card is so bad why does NFS 1 fly like lightning > on it? Answer that one brainiac. > Joe

You answered that question yourself. NFS 1 is not as demanding on the system as NFS2. NFS 1 ran through DOS, whereas NFS2 runs through WIN95. Think about it. There is more overhead to run under WIN95 than DOS. Try a different video card and you might be suprised. --

>You answered that question yourself. NFS 1 is not as demanding on the >system as NFS2. NFS 1 ran through DOS, whereas NFS2 runs through WIN95. >Think about it. There is more overhead to run under WIN95 than DOS. Try >a different video card and you might be suprised. You're not making sense. Win95 overhead (which in fact is extremely minimal in any case) has nothing to do with the speed of the graphics card. NFS 1 can dump graphics to the screen at an extremely high frame rate. NFS 2 cannot. The only difference is the software. Joe

Joe, I would love to give you a break! I did by suggesting you use a good 2d card other than the ATI which you use. I have a friend using basically same setup as you with the ATI. To prove a point I loaned him a S3 Trio(50 bucks) to use with NFS2 and he was dumb struck by the difference. Needless to say he isn't using the ATI anymore. Now whether you will like the game with a faster frame rate, well I think we all know the answer! :) Pete

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >Joe, I see your still at it! Until they do a patch so you > >can use your 3dfx card why don't you try the game with a real video > >card. That piece of ***ATI card you use just doesn't cut it. > GMAFB. It is a fact that different 2d cards make only the tiniest > difference to performance, not even noticable to most people. And > besides, if my video card is so bad why does NFS 1 fly like lightning > on it? Answer that one brainiac. > Joe

> Joe, I would love to give you a break! I did by suggesting >you use a good 2d card other than the ATI which you use. You have failed to answer any of my questions. Your argument is illogical, and you cannot support it. Why is NFS 1 able to dump graphics to the screen at a very high frame-rate, and NFS 2 not? They are both running on the same graphics chip. It doesn't suddenly get slower when running a different game. Perhaps you need to find out a little about how computers work before continuing this "argument". Joe

Joe, I will resist trying to reason with you! You are so highly opinionated on every subject you post on that it is a waste of time. But perhaps if you stopped calling everyone who disagrees with you stupid or blind it might carry you further. As far as computers are concerned I started working on computers in 1974, so perhaps you can come back in a few years! So I will leave you on your personal crusade to trash NFS2 on and on and on..........

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > Joe, I would love to give you a break! I did by suggesting > >you use a good 2d card other than the ATI which you use. > You have failed to answer any of my questions. Your argument is > illogical, and you cannot support it. Why is NFS 1 able to dump > graphics to the screen at a very high frame-rate, and NFS 2 not? They > are both running on the same graphics chip. It doesn't suddenly get > slower when running a different game. Perhaps you need to find out a > little about how computers work before continuing this "argument". > Joe

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > Joe, I would love to give you a break! I did by suggesting > >you use a good 2d card other than the ATI which you use. > You have failed to answer any of my questions. Your argument is > illogical, and you cannot support it. Why is NFS 1 able to dump > graphics to the screen at a very high frame-rate, and NFS 2 not? They > are both running on the same graphics chip. It doesn't suddenly get > slower when running a different game. Perhaps you need to find out a > little about how computers work before continuing this "argument". > Joe

The problem is windows. When windows is running it is using some of your system resources. That is why when you go to the control panel and select system icon and then select performance you do not get 100%. Every game I have tried has run slower through windows. Windows as a *** enviroment leaves a lot to be desired. It is a know fact that windows slows down games down. This is due to things that are being loaded beyond your control. Just to give an example: If you are running plus and have a theme loaded with animated icons look to see how much of your system resources are free. NFS 1 is able to "dump" graphics to the screen quicker becuase it is using DOS. NFS 2 is using Microsoft's direct X. This is only in the third version. In later releases the performance will probably increase, but for right now you will have to endure. NFS 2 is more complex than NFS 1 and that takes up some performance. You should just try a different video card before you tell people they need to find out how computers work. Until, you try another video card you should stop responding to this argument. I can tell you for a fact that something in your system is slowing it down (partially NFS2, but not totally). matt --

Quoted text (23 lines)

> >The problem is windows. When windows is running it is using some of > >your system resources. > A small percentage of them, yes. > >Every game I have tried has run slower through windows. > Maybe so, but many of them run much faster than NFS 2. > >NFS 1 is able to "dump" graphics to the screen quicker becuase it is > >using DOS. NFS 2 is using Microsoft's direct X. This is only in the > >third version. In later releases the performance will probably > >increase, but for right now you will have to endure. NFS 2 is more > >complex than NFS 1 and that takes up some performance. > >You should just try a different video card before you tell people they > >need to find out how computers work. > What are you talking about? You just spend a whole post telling me the > problem was Windows, and now the problem is not Windows all of a > sudden? Make up your mind. > Joe

If you are so clueless, that you can not see that Windows is the main reason NFS 2 is so slow. Look at Interstate 76, it runs slow, in my opinion slower than NFS2 set at the same screen resolution. I do not see you bashing I76 to the extent you are bashing NFS2. I will stop responding to anything you post now. You have pulled out frame rates from you invisible frame rate program, and until you post where you can get a program that will measure the frame rate your posts are useless. --

>The problem is windows. When windows is running it is using some of >your system resources. A small percentage of them, yes. Maybe so, but many of them run much faster than NFS 2. What are you talking about? You just spend a whole post telling me the problem was Windows, and now the problem is not Windows all of a sudden? Make up your mind. Joe

>Joe, I will resist trying to reason with you! You don't know how to reason, you've made that perfectly clear. Note that you have still failed to answer any of my questions. Joe

>I will stop responding to anything you post now. Thank God, I am so tired of listening to your illogical arguments and avoidance of the real issues. Hopefully you can at least keep your promise above. Joe

Joe, when I choose to reason, it will be with a reasonable person! You wouldn't like the answers! Pete > You don't know how to reason, you've made that perfectly clear. Note > that you have still failed to answer any of my questions. > Joe

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > You are so full of shit!! How do you know this guy isnt getting good > >framerates on NFS2 ? > Because he's seen it running on faster computers, and the game is > still unbearably slow. > >I have it running on a K6-166 w/32 meg,stealth > >3d2000 and it runs great! > It does not. > Joe

Runs great on my P166 MMX as well. Slow? Nope. Not Slow. Nope. Not slow at all. Joe? and before you reply, "does too".

>on my P166 MMX as well. Slow? Yup. It's slow all right. You apparently just don't know the meaning of the word (either that or you are an EA hack trying to drum up sales). Joe

Quoted text (10 lines)

> I have seen so many people say that "you have not seen it run on my > computer". Unless you have some computer that was "specially designed > for Need For Speed II" then you are smoking crack when you're playing > this game. I have a 200MMX machine that I run NFS2 on and it STILL > crawls unless I turn down the detail. I also have NFSSE and can play > with all detail on with great frame rates. I'm not calling you a > liar, well yeah I am, but there is no way in hell that one little > computer is going to have these great results that you preach about. > Of course, its all relative, and unless youve played the original, > you'll never know.

If NFS2 crawls on your 200mhz MMX, You need to have your system checked out. Run some benchmark tests (winbench, wintune,etc...). I have a 200mhz MMX. NFS2 isn't as smooth as NFS1 but on my machine the frame rate is great. The Game Sucks but the frame rate is great on my system.

On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 15:39:43 -0400, Anthony Mitchell

Quoted text (16 lines)

>> I have seen so many people say that "you have not seen it run on my >> computer". Unless you have some computer that was "specially designed >> for Need For Speed II" then you are smoking crack when you're playing >> this game. I have a 200MMX machine that I run NFS2 on and it STILL >> crawls unless I turn down the detail. I also have NFSSE and can play >> with all detail on with great frame rates. I'm not calling you a >> liar, well yeah I am, but there is no way in hell that one little >> computer is going to have these great results that you preach about. >> Of course, its all relative, and unless youve played the original, >> you'll never know. >If NFS2 crawls on your 200mhz MMX, You need to have your system checked >out. Run some benchmark tests (winbench, wintune,etc...). I have a >200mhz MMX. NFS2 isn't as smooth as NFS1 but on my machine the frame >rate is great. The Game Sucks but the frame rate is great on my >system.

How do you check frame rate in NFS2? Steve

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >I will stop responding to anything you post now. > Thank God, I am so tired of listening to your illogical arguments and > avoidance of the real issues. Hopefully you can at least keep your > promise above. > Joe

Clueless, simply clueless. . -- PolePosition#3- IVGA #4882 The Checkered Flag(NASCAR2): http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/4578/n2sim.html My Unofficial Dale Earnhardt Fan Page: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/4578/nascar.html The Dale Earnhardt Fan Ring: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/4578/dalering.html "If you don't believe, you don't belong." -- Alan Kulwicki's Credo

>You're not making sense. Win95 overhead (which in fact is extremely >minimal in any case) has nothing to do with the speed of the graphics >card. NFS 1 can dump graphics to the screen at an extremely high frame >rate. NFS 2 cannot. The only difference is the software. >Joe G's Joe, where do you get your ideas from? Games running under Win95 using the Direct drivers (DirectSound, Direct3D, etc) have MUCH more overhead to deal with than their DOS counterparts. Additionally, there is a lot of system management that comes with windows software-- you can't just take over all of the CPU cycles like you could if you were under DOS. This, I thought, was common knowledge. And elsewhere: That's not correct in my experience. Before I got my Matrox Millennium, action games used to crawl on my system (I had some factory no-name on my motherboard). Granted, it's not a drastic change like what I got after I purchased my Righteous3D, but it's certainly not a "tiny" difference. --kodiak ---- HINT for sentients wishing to email: remove the Xs

> >on my P166 MMX as well. Slow? > Yup. Nope. all wrong. You must be a competitor and trying to kill EA sales. The meaning of the word slow: "The speed at which the brain of Joe travels". My NFS2 is much faster than that. So is my grandmother. (she's dead).

seen the pointless bickering over who has what and what makes what better. I have a fine time with the game. If the topic is Need for Speed II yes or no, buy it! Regards, Glenn -- "It's easy to criticize from outside the***pit" -Murray Walker, Australian GP 1994

>The meaning of the word slow: The speed at which NFS 2 runs. About the same speed as your dead grandmother does. This is a fact. It has been confirmed by DOZENS of indpendent posters. One or two lamo EA brown-nosers will not convince anyone otherwise. Joe

<<Anyone can run it at full detail, with the***pit on. You'll just get a terrible fram rate, that's all (even with a P200). Joe>> This is probably an old thread and the argument long gone, but processor speed alone does not dictate the frame rate of games. Alot of it depends on your Graphics card, and wether or not the program was designed to work with the paticular chip set on that card. So, maybe the people claiming good frame rates in NFS2 have a better graphics card. Why would someone lie about somthing like this?

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>I will stop responding to anything you post now. >Thank God, I am so tired of listening to your illogical arguments and >avoidance of the real issues. Hopefully you can at least keep your >promise above. >Joe

Blah blah blah. I'm glad that *one* of you has enough sense to call this cat fight quits. At least you could take it to e-mail so you don't clog up the newsgroups with your collective bickering. --kodiak ---- HINT for sentients wishing to email: remove the Xs

>This is probably an old thread and the argument long gone, but processor >speed alone does not dictate the frame rate of games. Alot of it depends >on your Graphics card, and wether or not the program was designed to work >with the paticular chip set on that card. Here's the problem. Your argument is utterly contradictory. You say it's the graphics card and I point out that OTHER games (including NFS 1) achieve perfectly good frame-rates (outstanding frame rates in fact) on this exact same hardware. So you hum and haw and go, well it's not really the hardware it's Windows95 overhead. I point out that there are also Window95 games that run very fast on this computer. Then your side invariably goes back to the "it's the graphics card" stage. So on one side we have dozens (if not hundreds) of people who have complained about NFS2 frame-rates. And on the other side half a dozen (at most) presenting an argument that is logically contradictory. Every time I point the contradictions out and ask you to explain, you just flip-flop to the other half of your contradictory argument (i.e., saying it's either the graphics card or Windows 95, depending on what day of the week it is). As anyone can plainly see, the only logical conclusion a reasonable person can possibly come to is that NFS2 is an extremely slow game. You can claim otherwise until you're blue in the face, but I'm not going to believe you until you present a valid, logical argument, something I have not seen and do not expect to see (since it is always difficult to present a valid argument for something that is not true). Joe

Why don't we direct some of this input to Electronic Arts. Perhaps it will push them towards developing Direct3D support to speed things up a bit. Misdirected energy I'd say... Glenn "It's easy to criticize from outside the***pit" -Murray Walker, Australian GP 1994

> Why don't we direct some of this input to Electronic Arts. Perhaps it will > push them towards developing Direct3D support to speed things up a bit. They are developing D3D support. They haven't decided yet whether to release it as a patch or selling it as an add on. Let's hope they patch it, 'cause I'm not going to buy it. Chris

>Why don't we direct some of this input to Electronic Arts. Perhaps it will >push them towards developing Direct3D support to speed things up a bit. >Misdirected energy I'd say... Any game company that is not over run by idiots is already following these groups. (Whether or not EA is one of these is left as an exercise for the reader. <g>) Joe

I have a P166 with a 4Mb Matrox Millenium and 32Mb RAM. NFS2, in terms of framerate, runs fine with full detail. So I do think that the people with P200s, who are not getting a good framerate, should look at their graphics card or have their system checked. On the other hand, I use CH pedals and wheel which for some reason will not calibrate properly (pulls to the left). A number of other users have the same problem. In my view there's a bug in the calibration module - but anything out of EA is like getting *** out of a stone. I certainly wouldn't buy anymore of their stuff. My 8 year old son, for whom I bought the game, has also given up on it. Alan -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The views/opinions expressed here are my own and do not in any way reflect the views/opinions of my employer. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please let me know how you manage to solve that problem and if CH wheel is able to give you good control over the tight areas in NFSll regards Leong

Quoted text (8 lines)

>As anyone can plainly see, the only logical conclusion a reasonable >person can possibly come to is that NFS2 is an extremely slow game. >You can claim otherwise until you're blue in the face, but I'm not >going to believe you until you present a valid, logical argument, >something I have not seen and do not expect to see (since it is always >difficult to present a valid argument for something that is not true). >Joe

Joe buddy, I don't post much to this NG but I do read it daily, and this argument/thread has gotten monotonous. Firstly I'm in Australia, posting from an University of Sydney account - so I am most definitely not an EA stoogie. Secondly I have a Pentium Pro 200, 4Mb STB Lightspeed video card, and Ensoniq soundscape soundcard. Now on my system NFS2 is no different to NFSSE or NFS1 other than some occassional (though irritating) sound problems. Otherwise, the frame rates seem comparable. Now I don't know what your system is like, & if you say NFS2 is *** on your system - I believe you. [NFS1 was sure slow on my old DX266] Again I can't present a valid logical argument, all I can say is that it works on my system - if it didn't I'd complain as well; besides what do I or anyone else gain by saying a slow game isn't slow on 'my' computer. So why is it so hard for you to accept that? R

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > Sorry Joe, but one of us either has a computer running too fast or too > > slow. ;-) > > Looks like my p200 is running too fast as NFS2 runs great at all > > resolutions/detail. No jerkiness or anything. A bit more arcade-like than > > NFS1, but great still if u like that sorta thing. > > Someone hand me the fire extinguisher, its getting hot in here!!!! > > -- > Finally!! Somebody else has a computer that can run it on full detail! > I thought I was all by my lonesome. > Chris

It runs like a hot damn on my system too - P200 Pro with 32MB Ram and Diamond Stealth 3D.

It does not matter how fast your computer is, the design/programming of the graphics in parts of NFS II strobe and do other weird things that ruin the sensation of speed. This did not exist in NFS or NFS SE and will not exist in NFS II SE--EA has explicitly noted that this "issue" will be fixed in the upcoming SE release (which also has 3dfx and DirectDraw support).

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >> > Sorry Joe, but one of us either has a computer running too fast or > too > >> > slow. ;-) > >> > Looks like my p200 is running too fast as NFS2 runs great at all > >> > resolutions/detail. No jerkiness or anything. A bit more arcade-like > than > >> > NFS1, but great still if u like that sorta thing. > >> > Someone hand me the fire extinguisher, its getting hot in here!!!! > >> > -- > >> Finally!! Somebody else has a computer that can run it on full

detail!

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >> I thought I was all by my lonesome. > >> Chris > >It runs like a hot damn on my system too - P200 Pro with 32MB Ram > >and Diamond Stealth 3D. > I've got a P133 w/ 64MB of RAM and a 4MB VRAM Diamond Video card. NFS II > runs like crap, but NFS 1 runs great w/ full detail, his res, and sound. > ------------RacerSMR

>> > Sorry Joe, but one of us either has a computer running too fast or too >> > slow. ;-) >> > Looks like my p200 is running too fast as NFS2 runs great at all >> > resolutions/detail. No jerkiness or anything. A bit more arcade-like than

Quoted text (11 lines)

>> > NFS1, but great still if u like that sorta thing. >> > Someone hand me the fire extinguisher, its getting hot in here!!!! >> > -- >> Finally!! Somebody else has a computer that can run it on full detail! >> I thought I was all by my lonesome. >> Chris >It runs like a hot damn on my system too - P200 Pro with 32MB Ram >and Diamond Stealth 3D.

I've got a P133 w/ 64MB of RAM and a 4MB VRAM Diamond Video card. NFS II runs like crap, but NFS 1 runs great w/ full detail, his res, and sound. ------------RacerSMR