Nascar2K2 better than Nascar2003?

According to the ratings at PCGame Review- a pretty trustworthy site- the older Papyrus Nascar game outranks the new version 4.93 to 4.21. Is 2003 worth getting? I've seen it at Amazon for 9.99 (with rebate). Or is N2K2 still where it's at? http://www.pcgr.com/reviews/byletter/index_n.asp

"Peter Ford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > According to the ratings at PCGame Review- a pretty trustworthy site- > the older Papyrus Nascar game outranks the new version 4.93 to 4.21. > Is 2003 worth getting? I've seen it at Amazon for 9.99 (with rebate). > Or is N2K2 still where it's at? > > http://www.pcgr.com/reviews/byletter/index_n.asp N2K2 was one of Papy's worst versions IMHO, many people were turned off by the major pull to the left which was a lame attempt to increase realism. All it did was make you spin out a lot more in the turns. This was fixed in N2003, along with many other bugs. If you are not interested in online racing, then N2K2 may be fine for you. Most everyone racing online has switched to N2003 by now and abandoned N2K2.

PCgame Review (http://www.pcgr.com/), which is a pretty trustworthy site, rates N2k2 higher than N2003; 4.93-4.21. Is this accurate? I've seen the latter on Amazon for 9.99 including rebate. Is N2003 worth buying or is it indeed a step down from N2K2?

One thing about N2003 which I like is the ability to adjust the in-cockpit field-of-view. For me this alone is nearly worth the upgrade. "Peter Ford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > According to the ratings at PCGame Review- a pretty trustworthy site- > the older Papyrus Nascar game outranks the new version 4.93 to 4.21. > Is 2003 worth getting? I've seen it at Amazon for 9.99 (with rebate). > Or is N2K2 still where it's at?

Tire wear is greatly improved, car is more forgiving in n2003, great add ons are coming. Last but not least: every fan is allready on n2003. "Gary Wampler" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht news:CBOFa.27257$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> One thing about N2003 which I like is the ability to adjust the in-cockpit > field-of-view. For me this alone is nearly worth the upgrade. > > "Peter Ford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > According to the ratings at PCGame Review- a pretty trustworthy site- > > the older Papyrus Nascar game outranks the new version 4.93 to 4.21. > > Is 2003 worth getting? I've seen it at Amazon for 9.99 (with rebate). > > Or is N2K2 still where it's at? > > >

NR2003 is more open-ended than NR2002. If you want to use all the tracks, cars, and who knows whatelse that will be coming, you should get NR2003. Larry "Peter Ford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > According to the ratings at PCGame Review- a pretty trustworthy site- > the older Papyrus Nascar game outranks the new version 4.93 to 4.21. > Is 2003 worth getting? I've seen it at Amazon for 9.99 (with rebate). > Or is N2K2 still where it's at? > > http://www.pcgr.com/reviews/byletter/index_n.asp

Running the SuperSpeedways in NR2002 was BORING due to the rules package. -Larry "gordo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bc7s69$bgc$[email hidden]... > > "Peter Ford" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > According to the ratings at PCGame Review- a pretty trustworthy site- > > the older Papyrus Nascar game outranks the new version 4.93 to 4.21. > > Is 2003 worth getting? I've seen it at Amazon for 9.99 (with rebate). > > Or is N2K2 still where it's at? > > > > http://www.pcgr.com/reviews/byletter/index_n.asp > > N2K2 was one of Papy's worst versions IMHO, many people were turned off by

the major pull to the left which was a lame attempt to > increase realism. All it did was make you spin out a lot more in theturns. This was fixed in N2003, along with many other bugs. > If you are not interested in online racing, then N2K2 may be fine for you. > Most everyone racing online has switched to N2003 by now and abandonedN2K2. > >

Running the SuperSpeedways in NR2002 was BORING due to the rules package. -Larry the major pull to the left which was a lame attempt to turns. This was fixed in N2003, along with many other bugs.

In article <S95Ga.11986$[email hidden]>, "Larry" <[email hidden]> writes: >Running the SuperSpeedways in NR2002 was BORING due to the rules package. I'm curious - why do you think so? Eldred -- Help find missing child: Tatianna Ashley Chilicutt from Michigan(info on my homepage) Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <ad3Ga.400137$[email hidden]>, "Guido Mielekamp" <[email hidden]> writes: >Tire wear is greatly improved, car is more forgiving in n2003, great add ons >are coming. Last but not least: every fan is allready on n2003. Not every one. Some don't have the computing power to run N2003... Eldred -- Help find missing child: Tatianna Ashley Chilicutt from Michigan(info on my homepage) Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

If you have enough power to run N2002 with decent framerates and full graphics, then you should be able to run N2003 ok with a few graphics options turned off. Solar effects and specular highlights make big hit in framerate. You can turn them off if you are low on computer power. "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> In article <ad3Ga.400137$[email hidden]>, "Guido Mielekamp" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >Tire wear is greatly improved, car is more forgiving in n2003, great add ons > >are coming. Last but not least: every fan is allready on n2003. > > Not every one. Some don't have the computing power to run N2003... > > Eldred > -- > Help find missing child: Tatianna Ashley Chilicutt from Michigan(info on my > homepage) > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

You have got to be kidding. The pull to the left is a function of setup. You could put a setup together that pulled to the right if you wanted. Take the default sears point or watkins glen setup to daytona, and compare that to a Bob Stanley setup and you'll see what i'm talking about. There has to be some pull because of the banking. Take a balanced setup and drive the track backwards and you'll get pull to the right. It wasn't something Papy built into the game as a "lame attempt" at realism. Gimme a break. "gordo" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:bc7s69$bgc$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > "Peter Ford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> According to the ratings at PCGame Review- a pretty trustworthy site- >> the older Papyrus Nascar game outranks the new version 4.93 to 4.21. >> Is 2003 worth getting? I've seen it at Amazon for 9.99 (with rebate). >> Or is N2K2 still where it's at? >> >> http://www.pcgr.com/reviews/byletter/index_n.asp > > N2K2 was one of Papy's worst versions IMHO, many people were turned off > by the major pull to the left which was a lame attempt to increase > realism. All it did was make you spin out a lot more in the turns. This > was fixed in N2003, along with many other bugs. If you are not > interested in online racing, then N2K2 may be fine for you. Most > everyone racing online has switched to N2003 by now and abandoned N2K2. > >

-- <---------------------------------------> When replying via email, please remove "nosp/-\m" from the address header <--------------------------------------->

On 11 Jun 2003 10:52:47 -0700, [email hidden] (Peter Ford) wrote: >According to the ratings at PCGame Review- a pretty trustworthy site- >the older Papyrus Nascar game outranks the new version 4.93 to 4.21. >Is 2003 worth getting? I've seen it at Amazon for 9.99 (with rebate). >Or is N2K2 still where it's at? Haven't read the review, but the laptimes are significantly closer to reality in N2k2. Aside from that, I can't imagine why N2k2 would get a higher rating than N2k3 when there are numerous significant improvements across the board. Jason

[email hidden]

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Haven't read the review, but the laptimes are significantly closer to > reality in N2k2. Aside from that, I can't imagine why N2k2 would get > a higher rating than N2k3 when there are numerous significant > improvements across the board. > > Jason

Different reviewers maybe and different products they compare it against. Compared to Nascar Thunder, N2k2 was a clear winner, but now there isn't a fresh title to balance a comparision so the judgement may be based solely on the update from N2k2 to N2k3. A simmer might find a big improvement, a Gamer, would just say..whats new??? dave henrie

Maybe Papy pulling the Waltrip track tours had something to do with the lower score? "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> On 11 Jun 2003 10:52:47 -0700, [email hidden] (Peter Ford) wrote: > > > Haven't read the review, but the laptimes are significantly closer to > reality in N2k2. Aside from that, I can't imagine why N2k2 would get > a higher rating than N2k3 when there are numerous significant > improvements across the board. > > Jason

It was dog slow. You couldn't suck up on a car for shit, and the draft didn't feel right at all. -Larry "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <S95Ga.11986$[email hidden]>, "Larry"<[email hidden]>

Quoted text (9 lines)

> writes: > > >Running the SuperSpeedways in NR2002 was BORING due to the rules package. > > I'm curious - why do you think so? > > Eldred > -- > Help find missing child: Tatianna Ashley Chilicutt from Michigan(info on

my > homepage) > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

You are totally right about the pull being necessary for ovals. But Papy somehow didn't get the physics right in N2002. The pull was a bit exaggerated. In many the online open setup leagues I ran last year while using N2002, there were so many self spins it was completely ridiculous. Veteran open setup drivers were doing all the spinouts, not newbies. When we all switched to N2003 early this year, all was well with the sim world again. ;-) "J<nospam>Canar" <jcanar@nosp/-\m.attbi.com> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> You have got to be kidding. The pull to the left is a function of setup. > You could put a setup together that pulled to the right if you wanted. Take > the default sears point or watkins glen setup to daytona, and compare that to > a Bob Stanley setup and you'll see what i'm talking about. There has to be > some pull because of the banking. Take a balanced setup and drive the track > backwards and you'll get pull to the right. It wasn't something Papy built > into the game as a "lame attempt" at realism. Gimme a break. > >

In article <_uGGa.22635$[email hidden]>, "Larry" <[email hidden]> writes: >It was dog slow. You couldn't suck up on a car for shit, and the draft >didn't feel right at all. I thought people said the draft effect was TOO pronounced?? Eldred -- Help find missing child: Tatianna Ashley Chillcutt from Michigan(info on my homepage) Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Didn't seem like it to me :) Larry "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <_uGGa.22635$[email hidden]>, "Larry"<[email hidden]>

Quoted text (10 lines)

> writes: > > >It was dog slow. You couldn't suck up on a car for shit, and the draft > >didn't feel right at all. > > I thought people said the draft effect was TOO pronounced?? > > Eldred > -- > Help find missing child: Tatianna Ashley Chillcutt from Michigan(info on

my > homepage) > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.