A review of a game I personally thought was a bit of
a simplification of 500cc GP physics (still a worthy try
and certainly fun to play):
[link lost in import]
17% ?!? Now I know why NFS3 was once on the
PC Data top 20 game sales chart for over six
months (a game I don't even consider to be the
best in that particular series).
- George
I'll take your word for it on the "simplification", I thought GP 500
was the GPL of motorcycle sims in my opinion. But I never drove a '67
F1 car or a 500cc GP bike.
That review is pathetic, but sim makers need to learn something from
it. As much as I disagree with his assessment of the difficulty, he is
probably correct in his assessment of the average gamer.
You can make a sim with realistic physics and still make it accessible
to the average guy. NASCAR 2 would have been considered too difficult
when it was released years ago when few people even owned a steering
wheel.
The thing that saved NASCAR 2 was the tracks, specifically Taladega.
ANYONE could drive there, even with a keyboard, and be competitive by
adjusting the speed of the AI.
Sim producers should release products with training tracks, rather
than training vehicles like GPL. Racing at Watkins Glenn is difficult
for the average gamer in any vehicle, be it an F3 or an N2 car. But
racing at Taladega is something anyone can do, whether the physics are
GPL, N3, or perhaps even GP 500.
"George M. Smiley" wrote
It is quite frankly an awful review. When he's not complaining about the
lack of "on-bike" music and struggling with getting round the circuit, he
makes no analysis of the game's features - the AI, the views, the ways you
can control the bike and how much fun it is to really get *** the
power...
But that game DOES have have a few faults, not that he mentions them!
I wonder if he thinks racing a real bike is easy?!!
Mike
1999 YFZ-R6
