Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some "die-hard sim fans" may say.
"Mr. Plow" wrote:
Flame warTroll argues NFS Hot Pursuit 2 is a sim
In a cross-posted thread, a poster known as Eep insisted that Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2 was a racing simulation because it modelled some physics. RAS regulars argued that arcade and sim were distinct categories and that the game's physics were unrealistic, and the exchange became insulting. Goy Larsen and others urged people to stop feeding the troll.
Automated summary.
Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:
> Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a
> simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than
> most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some
> "die-hard sim fans" may say.
>
Oh not YOU again, Mr. Literal, Mr. Clinton, that depends on what the
meaning of "is" is...
Ok, so the cars don't fly, or go straight through solid objects. There
are some physics at work. But when people say a "sim" they mean it's
pretty close to Real Life(tm). I'd like to see you drive half the speed of
NFS6 and stay on the road. I'd like to see you collide with a tree at 150
MPH and drive away. Please, won't you try it??
The presence of some physics doesn't mean a game is a sim. Is Super
Mario Brothers a sim because it has gravity?
-Mr. Plow
NFS is a "sim" in the sense that it tries to "sim"ulate the experience of
driving a car. All racing games are sims. Some are more realistic than
others. They just differ in their accuracy.
And yes,Super Mario Brothers IS a sim. Just not a very accurate or realistic
one. ;-)
"Mr. Plow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
of
Quoted text (15 lines)
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:[email hidden]: > > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a > > simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than > > most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some > > "die-hard sim fans" may say. > > > > Oh not YOU again, Mr. Literal, Mr. Clinton, that depends on what the > meaning of "is" is... > > Ok, so the cars don't fly, or go straight through solid objects. There > are some physics at work. But when people say a "sim" they mean it's > pretty close to Real Life(tm). I'd like to see you drive half the speedQuoted text (7 lines)
> NFS6 and stay on the road. I'd like to see you collide with a tree at 150 > MPH and drive away. Please, won't you try it?? > > The presence of some physics doesn't mean a game is a sim. Is Super > Mario Brothers a sim because it has gravity? > > -Mr. PlowNo worries, all the rest of us new what you meant.
"Mr. Plow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
of
Quoted text (15 lines)
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:[email hidden]: > > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a > > simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than > > most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some > > "die-hard sim fans" may say. > > > > Oh not YOU again, Mr. Literal, Mr. Clinton, that depends on what the > meaning of "is" is... > > Ok, so the cars don't fly, or go straight through solid objects. There > are some physics at work. But when people say a "sim" they mean it's > pretty close to Real Life(tm). I'd like to see you drive half the speedQuoted text (7 lines)
> NFS6 and stay on the road. I'd like to see you collide with a tree at 150 > MPH and drive away. Please, won't you try it?? > > The presence of some physics doesn't mean a game is a sim. Is Super > Mario Brothers a sim because it has gravity? > > -Mr. Plow"Mr. Plow" wrote:
Yes, it is--relatively. Learn to think relatively and you'll understand how just about EVERY game is a sim and how the NFS series is a driving sim. Attempt to think, nitwit.
Quoted text (19 lines)
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:[email hidden]: > > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a > > simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than > > most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some > > "die-hard sim fans" may say. > > Oh not YOU again, Mr. Literal, Mr. Clinton, that depends on what the > meaning of "is" is... > > Ok, so the cars don't fly, or go straight through solid objects. There > are some physics at work. But when people say a "sim" they mean it's > pretty close to Real Life(tm). I'd like to see you drive half the speed of > NFS6 and stay on the road. I'd like to see you collide with a tree at 150 > MPH and drive away. Please, won't you try it?? > > The presence of some physics doesn't mean a game is a sim. Is Super > Mario Brothers a sim because it has gravity?"Knew"--and, apparently, Mr. Plow didn't know what HE meant or he would not've written such crap in the first place. Don't make excuses for his poor command of comprehension, Tim.
Tim Miser wrote:
Quoted text (24 lines)
> No worries, all the rest of us new what you meant. > > "Mr. Plow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in > > news:[email hidden]: > > > > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a > > > simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than > > > most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some > > > "die-hard sim fans" may say. > > > > > > > Oh not YOU again, Mr. Literal, Mr. Clinton, that depends on what the > > meaning of "is" is... > > > > Ok, so the cars don't fly, or go straight through solid objects. There > > are some physics at work. But when people say a "sim" they mean it's > > pretty close to Real Life(tm). I'd like to see you drive half the speed of > > NFS6 and stay on the road. I'd like to see you collide with a tree at 150 > > MPH and drive away. Please, won't you try it?? > > > > The presence of some physics doesn't mean a game is a sim. Is Super > > Mario Brothers a sim because it has gravity?"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
There
> > are some physics at work. But when people say a "sim" they mean it's
> > pretty close to Real Life(tm). I'd like to see you drive half the speedof
> > NFS6 and stay on the road. I'd like to see you collide with a tree at150
> > MPH and drive away. Please, won't you try it??
> >
> > The presence of some physics doesn't mean a game is a sim. Is Super
> > Mario Brothers a sim because it has gravity?
>
> Yes, it is--relatively. Learn to think relatively and you'll understandhow just about EVERY game is a sim and how the NFS series is a driving sim.
Attempt to think, nitwit.
>
While your'e at it; could you please elaborate the true meaning of "arcade"
as well?
/Carl
Quoted text (14 lines)
> "Mr. Plow" wrote: > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in > > news:[email hidden]: > > > > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a > > > simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than > > > most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some > > > "die-hard sim fans" may say. > > > > Oh not YOU again, Mr. Literal, Mr. Clinton, that depends on what the > > meaning of "is" is... > > > > Ok, so the cars don't fly, or go straight through solid objects.Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:
> Yes, it is--relatively. Learn to think relatively and you'll
> understand how just about EVERY game is a sim and how the NFS series
> is a driving sim. Attempt to think, nitwit.
>
Well, if YOU think that just about every game is a "sim", then more
obviously than ever you're living in your own little world. When people
say "sim" in reference to games, they mean it is a technical simulation of
real life in as many ways as possible. NFS6 looks & sounds like real life,
but only acts like real life in the most basic ways. It ignores tons of
real physics and therefore, to everyone else on USENET but you, is not a
"sim"!
People will never be able to relate to you if you can't agree on
the most basic common terms.
-Mr. Plow
"Mr. Plow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in
> news:[email hidden]:
> People will never be able to relate to you if you can't agree on
> the most basic common terms.
I get the feeling that Marvin(as many people have named him) would argue
that black was white, just for the sake of augment.
<crEep Impression>
"<yawn> Of course Black can be considered white, learn to think *relatively*
bub"
</crEep Impression>
--
Morgan.
----
* To alcohol, the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. :-
Homer Simpson.
Mail: [email hidden]
Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some "die-hard sim fans" may say.
>
From the reviews I have seen, Hot Pursuit 2 is not a sim.
Of course, you argue it's all "relative". And you have a point.
But your point can be taken too far.
I'm surprised, you love realistic physics so much in FPS games, and
you DEMAND them so much, yet when it comes to driving games, you can't
see how a series like Need for Speed has simple physics, at best.
Porsche Unleashed is probably the exception.
Carl Ribbegaardh wrote:
I think "arcade" is even more obtuse and vague but to me it basically applies to fairly simple (read "mindless") games with LOTS of action and very little thought needed to play (which is why "arcade" games make up most console games since they're mainly directed towards kids). "Arcade" mostly includes elements from platform, sim, and puzzle genres but, of course, aren't limited to them only.
Quoted text (31 lines)
> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "Mr. Plow" wrote: > > > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in > > > news:[email hidden]: > > > > > > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a > > > > simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than > > > > most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some > > > > "die-hard sim fans" may say. > > > > > > Oh not YOU again, Mr. Literal, Mr. Clinton, that depends on what the > > > meaning of "is" is... > > > > > > Ok, so the cars don't fly, or go straight through solid objects. There > > > are some physics at work. But when people say a "sim" they mean it's > > > pretty close to Real Life(tm). I'd like to see you drive half the speed of > > > NFS6 and stay on the road. I'd like to see you collide with a tree at 150 > > > MPH and drive away. Please, won't you try it?? > > > > > > The presence of some physics doesn't mean a game is a sim. Is Super > > > Mario Brothers a sim because it has gravity? > > > > Yes, it is--relatively. Learn to think relatively and you'll understand > how just about EVERY game is a sim and how the NFS series is a driving sim. > Attempt to think, nitwit. > > > > While your'e at it; could you please elaborate the true meaning of "arcade" > as well?Again, you need to learn to think relatively. I never said the NFS series is ONLY a sim but it definitely has more simulistic elements it does action elements.
Games CAN have more than one classification, you know...hence the learning to think relatively bit. Attempt to think, Plow.
"Mr. Plow" wrote:
Quoted text (16 lines)
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:[email hidden]: > > Yes, it is--relatively. Learn to think relatively and you'll > > understand how just about EVERY game is a sim and how the NFS series > > is a driving sim. Attempt to think, nitwit. > > Well, if YOU think that just about every game is a "sim", then more > obviously than ever you're living in your own little world. When people > say "sim" in reference to games, they mean it is a technical simulation of > real life in as many ways as possible. NFS6 looks & sounds like real life, > but only acts like real life in the most basic ways. It ignores tons of > real physics and therefore, to everyone else on USENET but you, is not a > "sim"! > > People will never be able to relate to you if you can't agree on > the most basic common terms.Again, learn to think relatively...and see my other responses in this thread.
e f wrote:
Quoted text (13 lines)
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some "die-hard sim fans" may say. > > > > From the reviews I have seen, Hot Pursuit 2 is not a sim. > > Of course, you argue it's all "relative". And you have a point. > But your point can be taken too far. > > I'm surprised, you love realistic physics so much in FPS games, and > you DEMAND them so much, yet when it comes to driving games, you can't > see how a series like Need for Speed has simple physics, at best. > Porsche Unleashed is probably the exception."Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
as a
> > > > > simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than
> > > > > most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite whatsome
> > > > > "die-hard sim fans" may say.
> > > >
> > > > Oh not YOU again, Mr. Literal, Mr. Clinton, that depends on whatthe
> > > > meaning of "is" is...
> > > >
> > > > Ok, so the cars don't fly, or go straight through solid objects.There
> > > > are some physics at work. But when people say a "sim" they meanit's
> > > > pretty close to Real Life(tm). I'd like to see you drive half thespeed of
> > > > NFS6 and stay on the road. I'd like to see you collide with a treeat 150
> > > > MPH and drive away. Please, won't you try it??
> > > >
> > > > The presence of some physics doesn't mean a game is a sim. IsSuper
> > > > Mario Brothers a sim because it has gravity?
> > >
> > > Yes, it is--relatively. Learn to think relatively and you'llunderstand
> > how just about EVERY game is a sim and how the NFS series is a drivingsim.
> > Attempt to think, nitwit.
> > >
> >
> > While your'e at it; could you please elaborate the true meaning of"arcade"
> > as well?
>
> I think "arcade" is even more obtuse and vague but to me it basicallyapplies to fairly simple (read "mindless") games with LOTS of action and
very little thought needed to play (which is why "arcade" games make up most
console games since they're mainly directed towards kids). "Arcade" mostly
includes elements from platform, sim, and puzzle genres but, of course,
aren't limited to them only.
>
Is NFS6 an arcade title by your definition?
Quoted text (10 lines)
> Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > "Mr. Plow" wrote: > > > > > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in > > > > news:[email hidden]: > > > > > > > > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That countsCarl Ribbegaardh wrote:
The NFS series can be categorized as an arcade driving sim.
Get a decent newsreader that doesn't chop up quoted text.
Quoted text (56 lines)
> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > "Mr. Plow" wrote: > > > > > > > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in > > > > > news:[email hidden]: > > > > > > > > > > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts > as a > > > > > > simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than > > > > > > most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite what > some > > > > > > "die-hard sim fans" may say. > > > > > > > > > > Oh not YOU again, Mr. Literal, Mr. Clinton, that depends on what > the > > > > > meaning of "is" is... > > > > > > > > > > Ok, so the cars don't fly, or go straight through solid objects. > There > > > > > are some physics at work. But when people say a "sim" they mean > it's > > > > > pretty close to Real Life(tm). I'd like to see you drive half the > speed of > > > > > NFS6 and stay on the road. I'd like to see you collide with a tree > at 150 > > > > > MPH and drive away. Please, won't you try it?? > > > > > > > > > > The presence of some physics doesn't mean a game is a sim. Is > Super > > > > > Mario Brothers a sim because it has gravity? > > > > > > > > Yes, it is--relatively. Learn to think relatively and you'll > understand > > > how just about EVERY game is a sim and how the NFS series is a driving > sim. > > > Attempt to think, nitwit. > > > > > > > > > > While your'e at it; could you please elaborate the true meaning of > "arcade" > > > as well? > > > > I think "arcade" is even more obtuse and vague but to me it basically > applies to fairly simple (read "mindless") games with LOTS of action and > very little thought needed to play (which is why "arcade" games make up most > console games since they're mainly directed towards kids). "Arcade" mostly > includes elements from platform, sim, and puzzle genres but, of course, > aren't limited to them only. > > > > Is NFS6 an arcade title by your definition?
"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Get a decent newsreader that doesn't chop up quoted text.
>This is absolutely the most ridicules coming from you. LOL!! Oh man your
something! Bitching about this guys newsreader takes you to an all new high
in the stupid comments category of dumbassdom. You are the #1 Usenet message
abuser (maybe not but this will give him a hard on) and your flaming this
poor soul for nothing compared to what you do a dozen times a day a or more.
With your no word wrap, and constant topic changing. No to mention your
flame bait posts every day.
I keep telling myself not to step into your little piles of NG crap you
leave laying around, but damned if I just can't help it.
Jlc.
So, mario carting is a sim?
Oh, and pod racer?
"Doug Hook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:dnHu9.125787$[email hidden]...
> NFS is a "sim" in the sense that it tries to "sim"ulate the experience of
> driving a car. All racing games are sims. Some are more realistic than
> others. They just differ in their accuracy.
>
> And yes,Super Mario Brothers IS a sim. Just not a very accurate orrealistic
There
> > are some physics at work. But when people say a "sim" they mean it's
> > pretty close to Real Life(tm). I'd like to see you drive half the speed
> of
> > NFS6 and stay on the road. I'd like to see you collide with a tree at150
Quoted text (17 lines)
> one. ;-) > > "Mr. Plow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in > > news:[email hidden]: > > > > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a > > > simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than > > > most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some > > > "die-hard sim fans" may say. > > > > > > > Oh not YOU again, Mr. Literal, Mr. Clinton, that depends on what the > > meaning of "is" is... > > > > Ok, so the cars don't fly, or go straight through solid objects.Quoted text (8 lines)
> > MPH and drive away. Please, won't you try it?? > > > > The presence of some physics doesn't mean a game is a sim. Is Super > > Mario Brothers a sim because it has gravity? > > > > -Mr. Plow > >Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a
> simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than most sims,
> it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some "die-hard sim fans"
> may say.
I am NOT a die-hard sim fan but I think it is fair to say that in a
lot of ways Hot Pursuit 2...at least for the PC... is COMPLETE CRAP!
For one, if it is a sim, then it is a sim of a boat on asphalt. The
steering lags (it also lacks...of course), is far from precise and the
handling of the cars is a real joke!
The graphics are not as much of an improvement as one would expect
after over two years since NFS:PU was released.
Force feedback is also pretty crap. There is virtually no road grip.
Even when set to 100% the wheel is just floating left and right...
The main issue I have with it is this. NFS5 was a good game. Why
couldn't they just take that and make modifications to it. I mean, WHY
could they not release something that was better? Should NFS6 not be
an improvement over NFS5?
As far as I am concerned....the developers of the game should have
spent their time fishing...or sleeping...or whatever...Just don't code
any more games....PLEASE!
Final verdict on the game: Certainly not worth the time it takes to
pick it up from the shop - even if it was free. Back to NFS5...
SH
Yes, relatively--not SOLEY, however.
AndyC wrote:
Quoted text (34 lines)
> So, mario carting is a sim? > Oh, and pod racer? > > "Doug Hook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:dnHu9.125787$[email hidden]... > > NFS is a "sim" in the sense that it tries to "sim"ulate the experience of > > driving a car. All racing games are sims. Some are more realistic than > > others. They just differ in their accuracy. > > > > And yes,Super Mario Brothers IS a sim. Just not a very accurate or realistic > > one. ;-) > > > > "Mr. Plow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in > > > news:[email hidden]: > > > > > > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a > > > > simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than > > > > most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some > > > > "die-hard sim fans" may say. > > > > > > > > > > Oh not YOU again, Mr. Literal, Mr. Clinton, that depends on what the > > > meaning of "is" is... > > > > > > Ok, so the cars don't fly, or go straight through solid objects. There > > > are some physics at work. But when people say a "sim" they mean it's > > > pretty close to Real Life(tm). I'd like to see you drive half the speed of > > > NFS6 and stay on the road. I'd like to see you collide with a tree at 150 > > > MPH and drive away. Please, won't you try it?? > > > > > > The presence of some physics doesn't mean a game is a sim. Is Super > > > Mario Brothers a sim because it has gravity?Just because NFSHP2 isn't as GOOD a sim as NFS5 doesn't mean it's still not a sim. The NFS series IS a sim (among other things: arcade/action driving sim).
SH wrote:
Quoted text (30 lines)
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a > > simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than most sims, > > it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some "die-hard sim fans" > > may say. > > I am NOT a die-hard sim fan but I think it is fair to say that in a > lot of ways Hot Pursuit 2...at least for the PC... is COMPLETE CRAP! > > For one, if it is a sim, then it is a sim of a boat on asphalt. The > steering lags (it also lacks...of course), is far from precise and the > handling of the cars is a real joke! > > The graphics are not as much of an improvement as one would expect > after over two years since NFS:PU was released. > > Force feedback is also pretty crap. There is virtually no road grip. > Even when set to 100% the wheel is just floating left and right... > > The main issue I have with it is this. NFS5 was a good game. Why > couldn't they just take that and make modifications to it. I mean, WHY > could they not release something that was better? Should NFS6 not be > an improvement over NFS5? > > As far as I am concerned....the developers of the game should have > spent their time fishing...or sleeping...or whatever...Just don't code > any more games....PLEASE! > > Final verdict on the game: Certainly not worth the time it takes to > pick it up from the shop - even if it was free. Back to NFS5..."Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
counts
> > as a
> > > > > > > simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-orientedthan
> > > > > > > most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despitewhat
> > some
> > > > > > > "die-hard sim fans" may say.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh not YOU again, Mr. Literal, Mr. Clinton, that depends onwhat
> > the
> > > > > > meaning of "is" is...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, so the cars don't fly, or go straight through solidobjects.
> > There
> > > > > > are some physics at work. But when people say a "sim" they mean
> > it's
> > > > > > pretty close to Real Life(tm). I'd like to see you drive halfthe
> > speed of
> > > > > > NFS6 and stay on the road. I'd like to see you collide with atree
driving
most
> > console games since they're mainly directed towards kids). "Arcade"mostly
1. Let me break the news to you that in RAS, there is a distinction between
Arcade and Sim.
They are the opposite of each other.
Arcade != Sim
This message is a cross-post, and the "other side" you are currently dealing
with is REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS
2. What is your problem with my NewsReader?
I like it. Isn't that all that count?
Now go back to your "action games".
/Carl
Quoted text (14 lines)
> Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > "Mr. Plow" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in > > > > > > news:[email hidden]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? ThatQuoted text (10 lines)
> > at 150 > > > > > > MPH and drive away. Please, won't you try it?? > > > > > > > > > > > > The presence of some physics doesn't mean a game is a sim. Is > > Super > > > > > > Mario Brothers a sim because it has gravity? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is--relatively. Learn to think relatively and you'll > > understand > > > > how just about EVERY game is a sim and how the NFS series is aQuoted text (11 lines)
> > sim. > > > > Attempt to think, nitwit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > While your'e at it; could you please elaborate the true meaning of > > "arcade" > > > > as well? > > > > > > I think "arcade" is even more obtuse and vague but to me it basically > > applies to fairly simple (read "mindless") games with LOTS of action and > > very little thought needed to play (which is why "arcade" games make upQuoted text (15 lines)
> > includes elements from platform, sim, and puzzle genres but, of course, > > aren't limited to them only. > > > > > > > Is NFS6 an arcade title by your definition? > > The NFS series can be categorized as an arcade driving sim. > > Get a > decent > newsreader > that doesn't chop > > up quoted text. >Carl Ribbegaardh wrote:
Not absolutely; parts of both can be in the same game, amazingly (for you, apparently). Attempt to learn to think relatively, twit.
> This message is a cross-post, and the "other side" you are currently dealing
> with is REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS
Der, gee, no shit, Sherlock? Wow, YOU'RE quick...
> 2. What is your problem with my NewsReader?
> I like it. Isn't that all that count?
You like how it fucks up quoted text? Wow, YOU'RE lame...
> Now go back to your "action games".
Action-sims, among other hybrid genres, actually. :)
Quoted text (84 lines)
> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > "Mr. Plow" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in > > > > > > > news:[email hidden]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That > counts > > > as a > > > > > > > > simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented > than > > > > > > > > most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite > what > > > some > > > > > > > > "die-hard sim fans" may say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh not YOU again, Mr. Literal, Mr. Clinton, that depends on > what > > > the > > > > > > > meaning of "is" is... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, so the cars don't fly, or go straight through solid > objects. > > > There > > > > > > > are some physics at work. But when people say a "sim" they mean > > > it's > > > > > > > pretty close to Real Life(tm). I'd like to see you drive half > the > > > speed of > > > > > > > NFS6 and stay on the road. I'd like to see you collide with a > tree > > > at 150 > > > > > > > MPH and drive away. Please, won't you try it?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The presence of some physics doesn't mean a game is a sim. Is > > > Super > > > > > > > Mario Brothers a sim because it has gravity? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is--relatively. Learn to think relatively and you'll > > > understand > > > > > how just about EVERY game is a sim and how the NFS series is a > driving > > > sim. > > > > > Attempt to think, nitwit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While your'e at it; could you please elaborate the true meaning of > > > "arcade" > > > > > as well? > > > > > > > > I think "arcade" is even more obtuse and vague but to me it basically > > > applies to fairly simple (read "mindless") games with LOTS of action and > > > very little thought needed to play (which is why "arcade" games make up > most > > > console games since they're mainly directed towards kids). "Arcade" > mostly > > > includes elements from platform, sim, and puzzle genres but, of course, > > > aren't limited to them only. > > > > > > > > > > Is NFS6 an arcade title by your definition? > > > > The NFS series can be categorized as an arcade driving sim. > > > > Get a > > decent > > newsreader > > that doesn't chop > > > > up quoted text. > > 1. Let me break the news to you that in RAS, there is a distinction between > Arcade and Sim. > They are the opposite of each other. > Arcade != Sim
Carl Ribbegaardh wrote:
>
> This message is a cross-post, and the "other side" you are currently dealing
> with is REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS
If you guys insist on feeding the trolls, could you at least stop cross
posting please
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
http://www.theuspits.com
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--
>"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote
> If you guys insist on feeding the trolls, could you at least stop cross
> posting please
Yeah it's not like Eep actually reads this NG whatsoever.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
ymenard wrote:
>
> >"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote
> > If you guys insist on feeding the trolls, could you at least stop cross
> > posting please
>
> Yeah it's not like Eep actually reads this NG whatsoever.
I've yet to see him post here other than as a cross post from a couple
of other groups, if that's not a sign.....
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
http://www.theuspits.com
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--
Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> Just because NFSHP2 isn't as GOOD a sim as NFS5 doesn't mean it's still not a sim. The NFS series IS a sim (among other things: arcade/action driving sim).
>
The words "arcade" and "sim" are mutually exclusive.
From the sounds of the reviews, NFS6 is a step back from even Need
for Speed IV in terms of simulation. "Invisible walls"? I don't
remember any of those in Need for Speed IV. No in-car view? To me
that makes it an arcade game.
Quoted text (32 lines)
> SH wrote: > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a > > > simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than most sims, > > > it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some "die-hard sim fans" > > > may say. > > > > I am NOT a die-hard sim fan but I think it is fair to say that in a > > lot of ways Hot Pursuit 2...at least for the PC... is COMPLETE CRAP! > > > > For one, if it is a sim, then it is a sim of a boat on asphalt. The > > steering lags (it also lacks...of course), is far from precise and the > > handling of the cars is a real joke! > > > > The graphics are not as much of an improvement as one would expect > > after over two years since NFS:PU was released. > > > > Force feedback is also pretty crap. There is virtually no road grip. > > Even when set to 100% the wheel is just floating left and right... > > > > The main issue I have with it is this. NFS5 was a good game. Why > > couldn't they just take that and make modifications to it. I mean, WHY > > could they not release something that was better? Should NFS6 not be > > an improvement over NFS5? > > > > As far as I am concerned....the developers of the game should have > > spent their time fishing...or sleeping...or whatever...Just don't code > > any more games....PLEASE! > > > > Final verdict on the game: Certainly not worth the time it takes to > > pick it up from the shop - even if it was free. Back to NFS5...On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:35:21 GMT, Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote
something like this:
>Yes, relatively--not SOLEY, however.
Please don't use non-standard spelling.
--
- Igor -
something like this:
Please don't use non-standard spelling.
--
- Igor -
I think you are confused about the word 'simulation'. A game like
tetris, where the blocks fall down the screen, is not in any way a
simulation, but it does have some idea of gravity. The blocks fall at
a constant speed, so there is no resultant force acting on the block,
so either there is no gravitational force acting on the block, or the
block has reached terminal velocity, where the air resistance stops it
from accelerating towards the ground. We can discount this second
theory because if you had a block which was straight (ie four squares
in a row), it would slow down when you rotated it from vertical to
horizontal, as there would be more air resistance. So tetris does not
model air resistance. Therefore, it does not 'simulate' gravity. It
does however have a 'notion' of gravity, as the blocks move down the
screen (pixel by pixel), instead of up or diagonally or some other
direction. That is obvious, but I spelled it out for you.
A 'simulation' would actually model the equations of motion which can
be used to calculate the gravitational force on an object. Usually,
-9.81m/(s^2) will suffice as an approximation of gravitational
acceleration at the Earth's surface, and when that value of
acceleration is applied to an object, it falls in a realistic manner.
Technically, a true 'simulation' would calculate the equation G = (m1
* m2)/(r^2) for two masses, at a distance r from each other. This is a
more complete 'simulation' of the effects of gravity, and works in
cases where the first one does not (ie not at the surface of planet
Earth, or where another large mass is concerned). Usually for a game,
this is not necessary, as it approximates to -9.81m/(s^2) anyway.
So, in conclusion, just because something moves downwards through the
air, or moves forwards when you push a button marked 'accelerator',
doesn't mean it is a 'simulation'. Even the best racing 'sims' we play
today, 'simulate' an extremely small amount of what is actually
happening, for example, most racing 'sims' model a car engine as two
torque curves, one at 100% throttle, and one at 0%. They then linearly
interpolate between these two values at a given RPM to get a resultant
torque. Is that simulating an engine? In absolutely no way whatsoever,
but it approximates the output you would get in real life. Does
Pacejka 'simulate' how tyres work? No, it is a mathematical function
which generates a graph, and this graph loosely fits over someone's
experimental data from a real tyre.
You are thinking that the most basic game is a 'simulation' in the
most basic sense, while something like NR2002 is a full 'simulator'.
Well, NR2002 is a 'simulation' in the most basic sense, and we have
yet to see where more computing power and more understanding of the
nature of physics will lead us in decades to come.
Ithankyou.
"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
action-oriented
on
mean
> > > > it's
> > > > > > > > pretty close to Real Life(tm). I'd like to see you drivehalf
> > the
> > > > speed of
> > > > > > > > NFS6 and stay on the road. I'd like to see you collide witha
> > tree
> > > > at 150
> > > > > > > > MPH and drive away. Please, won't you try it??
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The presence of some physics doesn't mean a game is a sim.Is
of
> > > > "arcade"
> > > > > > as well?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think "arcade" is even more obtuse and vague but to me itbasically
> > > > applies to fairly simple (read "mindless") games with LOTS of actionand
> > > > very little thought needed to play (which is why "arcade" games makeup
> > most
> > > > console games since they're mainly directed towards kids). "Arcade"
> > mostly
> > > > includes elements from platform, sim, and puzzle genres but, ofcourse,
between
> > Arcade and Sim.
> > They are the opposite of each other.
> > Arcade != Sim
>
> Not absolutely; parts of both can be in the same game, amazingly (for you,apparently). Attempt to learn to think relatively, twit.
In the context of this group, I'm afraid you are wrong.
I didn't get the last part thou?
>
> > This message is a cross-post, and the "other side" you are currentlydealing
> > with is REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS
>
> Der, gee, no shit, Sherlock? Wow, YOU'RE quick...
>
It didn't appear that you realized you were talking to guys with a different
perspective, so I was quite sure I had to spell it out for you.
>
> > 2. What is your problem with my NewsReader?
> > I like it. Isn't that all that count?
>
> You like how it fucks up quoted text? Wow, YOU'RE lame...
>
Am I lame?
Let me tell you that I simply don't care about your quoted text.
I really don't understand how someone can get so worked up over my
newsbrowser?
> > Now go back to your "action games".
>
> Action-sims, among other hybrid genres, actually. :)
>
So?
Quoted text (21 lines)
> Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > "Mr. Plow" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in > > > > > > > > news:[email hidden]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That > > counts > > > > as a > > > > > > > > > simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is moreQuoted text (7 lines)
> > than > > > > > > > > > most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite > > what > > > > some > > > > > > > > > "die-hard sim fans" may say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh not YOU again, Mr. Literal, Mr. Clinton, that dependsQuoted text (8 lines)
> > what > > > > the > > > > > > > > meaning of "is" is... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, so the cars don't fly, or go straight through solid > > objects. > > > > There > > > > > > > > are some physics at work. But when people say a "sim" theyQuoted text (12 lines)
> > > > Super > > > > > > > > Mario Brothers a sim because it has gravity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is--relatively. Learn to think relatively and you'll > > > > understand > > > > > > how just about EVERY game is a sim and how the NFS series is a > > driving > > > > sim. > > > > > > Attempt to think, nitwit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While your'e at it; could you please elaborate the true meaningQuoted text (15 lines)
> > > > aren't limited to them only. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is NFS6 an arcade title by your definition? > > > > > > The NFS series can be categorized as an arcade driving sim. > > > > > > Get a > > > decent > > > newsreader > > > that doesn't chop > > > > > > up quoted text. > > > > 1. Let me break the news to you that in RAS, there is a distinctione f wrote:
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> > Just because NFSHP2 isn't as GOOD a sim as NFS5 doesn't mean it's still not a sim. The NFS series IS a sim (among other things: arcade/action driving sim).
>
> The words "arcade" and "sim" are mutually exclusive.
Only to close-/narrow-minded types like you.
> From the sounds of the reviews, NFS6 is a step back from even Need
> for Speed IV in terms of simulation. "Invisible walls"? I don't
> remember any of those in Need for Speed IV. No in-car view? To me
> that makes it an arcade game.
Well, you're wrong--sorry. Games CAN have simulation AND arcade elements, you know. Learn to think relatively and perhaps you'll get a clue.
Pretty pathetic when you single out a simple spelling mistake... <chuckle>
Learn how to change the subject line correctly by removing the last "(was...)" part, noob.
Jussi 'Igor' Koukku wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:35:21 GMT, Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote
> something like this:
>
> >Yes, relatively--not SOLEY, however.
>
> Please don't use non-standard spelling.
There is no gravity in Tetris; the blocks don't fall at a constant speed but in "steps". However, Hot Pursuit 2 DOES simulate gravity (among other physics) so it IS a sim. Duh.
Learning to think relatively will help you understand how just about every game is a sim and that there are DEGREES (hence the relativity) of simulation.
Nick wrote:
Quoted text (45 lines)
> I think you are confused about the word 'simulation'. A game like > tetris, where the blocks fall down the screen, is not in any way a > simulation, but it does have some idea of gravity. The blocks fall at > a constant speed, so there is no resultant force acting on the block, > so either there is no gravitational force acting on the block, or the > block has reached terminal velocity, where the air resistance stops it > from accelerating towards the ground. We can discount this second > theory because if you had a block which was straight (ie four squares > in a row), it would slow down when you rotated it from vertical to > horizontal, as there would be more air resistance. So tetris does not > model air resistance. Therefore, it does not 'simulate' gravity. It > does however have a 'notion' of gravity, as the blocks move down the > screen (pixel by pixel), instead of up or diagonally or some other > direction. That is obvious, but I spelled it out for you. > > A 'simulation' would actually model the equations of motion which can > be used to calculate the gravitational force on an object. Usually, > -9.81m/(s^2) will suffice as an approximation of gravitational > acceleration at the Earth's surface, and when that value of > acceleration is applied to an object, it falls in a realistic manner. > Technically, a true 'simulation' would calculate the equation G = (m1 > * m2)/(r^2) for two masses, at a distance r from each other. This is a > more complete 'simulation' of the effects of gravity, and works in > cases where the first one does not (ie not at the surface of planet > Earth, or where another large mass is concerned). Usually for a game, > this is not necessary, as it approximates to -9.81m/(s^2) anyway. > > So, in conclusion, just because something moves downwards through the > air, or moves forwards when you push a button marked 'accelerator', > doesn't mean it is a 'simulation'. Even the best racing 'sims' we play > today, 'simulate' an extremely small amount of what is actually > happening, for example, most racing 'sims' model a car engine as two > torque curves, one at 100% throttle, and one at 0%. They then linearly > interpolate between these two values at a given RPM to get a resultant > torque. Is that simulating an engine? In absolutely no way whatsoever, > but it approximates the output you would get in real life. Does > Pacejka 'simulate' how tyres work? No, it is a mathematical function > which generates a graph, and this graph loosely fits over someone's > experimental data from a real tyre. > > You are thinking that the most basic game is a 'simulation' in the > most basic sense, while something like NR2002 is a full 'simulator'. > Well, NR2002 is a 'simulation' in the most basic sense, and we have > yet to see where more computing power and more understanding of the > nature of physics will lead us in decades to come.Carl Ribbegaardh wrote:
Fear YOUR wrongness, bub; you're the one who can't think relatively. <shrug>
> I didn't get the last part thou?
Of course you didn't. <pats your wittle ignoramus head and chuckles>
Yet another thing you're wrong about. Why else do you think I crossposted to both newsgroups in the first place? Hello...McFly! <bonk>
> > > 2. What is your problem with my NewsReader?
> > > I like it. Isn't that all that count?
> >
> > You like how it fucks up quoted text? Wow, YOU'RE lame...
>
> Am I lame?
More than you know.
> Let me tell you that I simply don't care about your quoted text.
> I really don't understand how someone can get so worked up over my
> newsbrowser?
Ah, yes, spoken like a true noob. <thwap> Attempt to evolve, twit.
> > > Now go back to your "action games".
> >
> > Action-sims, among other hybrid genres, actually. :)
>
> So?
<shrug> You're the lamer who brought it up. You're filtered; I tire of dealing with your ineptness, idiot.
Quoted text (105 lines)
> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > "Mr. Plow" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in > > > > > > > > > news:[email hidden]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That > > > counts > > > > > as a > > > > > > > > > > simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more > action-oriented > > > than > > > > > > > > > > most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite > > > what > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > "die-hard sim fans" may say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh not YOU again, Mr. Literal, Mr. Clinton, that depends > on > > > what > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > meaning of "is" is... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, so the cars don't fly, or go straight through solid > > > objects. > > > > > There > > > > > > > > > are some physics at work. But when people say a "sim" they > mean > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > > pretty close to Real Life(tm). I'd like to see you drive > half > > > the > > > > > speed of > > > > > > > > > NFS6 and stay on the road. I'd like to see you collide with > a > > > tree > > > > > at 150 > > > > > > > > > MPH and drive away. Please, won't you try it?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The presence of some physics doesn't mean a game is a sim. > Is > > > > > Super > > > > > > > > > Mario Brothers a sim because it has gravity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is--relatively. Learn to think relatively and you'll > > > > > understand > > > > > > > how just about EVERY game is a sim and how the NFS series is a > > > driving > > > > > sim. > > > > > > > Attempt to think, nitwit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While your'e at it; could you please elaborate the true meaning > of > > > > > "arcade" > > > > > > > as well? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think "arcade" is even more obtuse and vague but to me it > basically > > > > > applies to fairly simple (read "mindless") games with LOTS of action > and > > > > > very little thought needed to play (which is why "arcade" games make > up > > > most > > > > > console games since they're mainly directed towards kids). "Arcade" > > > mostly > > > > > includes elements from platform, sim, and puzzle genres but, of > course, > > > > > aren't limited to them only. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is NFS6 an arcade title by your definition? > > > > > > > > The NFS series can be categorized as an arcade driving sim. > > > > > > > > Get a > > > > decent > > > > newsreader > > > > that doesn't chop > > > > > > > > up quoted text. > > > > > > 1. Let me break the news to you that in RAS, there is a distinction > between > > > Arcade and Sim. > > > They are the opposite of each other. > > > Arcade != Sim > > > > Not absolutely; parts of both can be in the same game, amazingly (for you, > apparently). Attempt to learn to think relatively, twit. > > In the context of this group, I'm afraid you are wrong.Quoted text (8 lines)
> > > This message is a cross-post, and the "other side" you are currently > dealing > > > with is REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS > > > > Der, gee, no shit, Sherlock? Wow, YOU'RE quick... > > It didn't appear that you realized you were talking to guys with a different > perspective, so I was quite sure I had to spell it out for you."Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
I wish both of you would learn to snip the irrelevant crap
--
Ian P
<email invalid due to spam>
Quoted text (10 lines)
> Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > >"Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:apmpj4$555>
> I wish both of you would learn to snip the irrelevant crap
By irrelevant I take it that you mean *EVERYTHING* that Eep posts. :-)
--
Morgan.
----
* We have been the dreamers, we have been the sufferers, now we are the
builders. We enter this campaign at this general election, not merely to get
rid of the Tory majority. We want the complete political extinction of the
Tory Party. :- Aneurin Bevan
Mail: [email hidden]
Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
Well, I didn't like to be quite so abrubt, but yes ;)
--
Ian P
<email invalid due to spam>
"Morgan Sales" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:apmqcs$36dmp$[email hidden]...
> "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:apmpj4$555>
>
> > I wish both of you would learn to snip the irrelevant crap
>
> By irrelevant I take it that you mean *EVERYTHING* that Eep posts. :-)
>
> --
> Morgan.
> ----
> * We have been the dreamers, we have been the sufferers, now we are the
> builders. We enter this campaign at this general election, not merely to
get
> rid of the Tory majority. We want the complete political extinction of the
> Tory Party. :- Aneurin Bevan
>
> Mail: [email hidden]
> Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
>
>
[email hidden] (Nick) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Approximation doesn't necessarily disqualify a game as being a
simulation.
You have to look at the results, not the process. Is the goal of the
game a racing simulation, or an engine simulation? Every simulation
is going to have it's weak areas, areas that are not as strongly
modelled as others. For instance, I don't see too many people
complaining because a driving game doesn't have an atmospheric model
with weather patterns so they can drive during a huricane or tornado.
Most just make do with having rain/overcast/snow, etc.
Quoted text (7 lines)
> You are thinking that the most basic game is a 'simulation' in the > most basic sense, while something like NR2002 is a full 'simulator'. > Well, NR2002 is a 'simulation' in the most basic sense, and we have > yet to see where more computing power and more understanding of the > nature of physics will lead us in decades to come. > > Ithankyou.In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...
Gee, fuckface, then given that the fucking game has a buttload of action
elements and just a wee bit of sim elements, maybe it _does_ belong here
in comp...action, like all of us fucking said to begin with when you
pitched your typical sissy-assed whinefest when someone asked about it
here?
Fucking cunt.
--
smr
Quoted text (15 lines)
> e f wrote: > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > > Just because NFSHP2 isn't as GOOD a sim as NFS5 doesn't mean it's still not a sim. The NFS series IS a sim (among other things: arcade/action driving sim). > > > > The words "arcade" and "sim" are mutually exclusive. > > Only to close-/narrow-minded types like you. > > > From the sounds of the reviews, NFS6 is a step back from even Need > > for Speed IV in terms of simulation. "Invisible walls"? I don't > > remember any of those in Need for Speed IV. No in-car view? To me > > that makes it an arcade game. > > Well, you're wrong--sorry. Games CAN have simulation AND arcade elements, you know. Learn to think relatively and perhaps you'll get a clue.On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 18:42:03 GMT, Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote
something like this:
>Pretty pathetic when you single out a simple spelling mistake... <chuckle>
I think it's pretty pathetic when you single out a simple acronym (FF,
which everyone else understood), and claimed it "non-standard". I'm
still waiting for you to show me the "acronym standard" that I can
safely use.
>Learn how to change the subject line correctly by removing the last "(was...)" part, noob.
Learn how to reply below the text you're replying to, noob. I've
pointed it out to you before, so there's no excuse for your
non-standard replying method now is there, noob.
Without a doubt your skills as a subject changer are superior to
mine... after all, that's about all you seem to do here, noob.
BTW, what was that followup-to address changing all about, noob?
Trying to be clever, noob?
--
- Igor -
Jussi 'Igor' Koukku wrote:
Simply define acronyms in the beginning and there won't be a problem. Duh.
> >Learn how to change the subject line correctly by removing the last "(was...)" part, noob.
>
> Learn how to reply below the text you're replying to, noob. I've
> pointed it out to you before, so there's no excuse for your
> non-standard replying method now is there, noob.
Top-post replying is perfectly acceptable when not inter-quoted text replying. <shrug> Get over it, putzfuck.
> Without a doubt your skills as a subject changer are superior to
> mine... after all, that's about all you seem to do here, noob.
>
> BTW, what was that followup-to address changing all about, noob?
> Trying to be clever, noob?
Simply trying to avert useless responses (like you'll no doubt do again). No worry for me though; you're now filtered.
Quoted text (9 lines)
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 18:42:03 GMT, Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote > something like this: > > >Pretty pathetic when you single out a simple spelling mistake... <chuckle> > > I think it's pretty pathetic when you single out a simple acronym (FF, > which everyone else understood), and claimed it "non-standard". I'm > still waiting for you to show me the "acronym standard" that I can > safely use.On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:31:53 GMT, Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote
something like this:
> Simply define acronyms in the beginning and there won't be a problem. Duh.
Funny that you were the only one who saw a problem in it in the first
place. I still think that FF is quite "standard" enough in these two
groups, especially when used in such context. Besides, defining the
acronyms in the beginning won't make them standard.
>Top-post replying is perfectly acceptable when not inter-quoted text replying. <shrug> Get over it, putzfuck.
Thank you for the information... I must admit that I haven't read the
netiquette in years... it probably encourages namecalling these days
too.
>Simply trying to avert useless responses (like you'll no doubt do again). No worry for me though; you're now filtered.
Well, filtering me will most likely save both you and me from writing
lots of useless responses. If not that, it will atleast save you from
trying to figure out non-standard acronyms.
--
- Igor -
It may be a sim but it's not a car sim. For a car sim, you would expect the car
to handle like one. It handles more like a boat or a snowmobile....
In article <[email hidden]>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= says...
Quoted text (38 lines)
> >Just because NFSHP2 isn't as GOOD a sim as NFS5 doesn't mean it's still not a >sim. The NFS series IS a sim (among other things: arcade/action driving sim). > >SH wrote: > >>Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>news:<[email hidden]>... >> > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a >>> simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than most sims, >>> it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some "die-hard sim fans" >> > may say. >> >> I am NOT a die-hard sim fan but I think it is fair to say that in a >> lot of ways Hot Pursuit 2...at least for the PC... is COMPLETE CRAP! >> >> For one, if it is a sim, then it is a sim of a boat on asphalt. The >> steering lags (it also lacks...of course), is far from precise and the >> handling of the cars is a real joke! >> >> The graphics are not as much of an improvement as one would expect >> after over two years since NFS:PU was released. >> >> Force feedback is also pretty crap. There is virtually no road grip. >> Even when set to 100% the wheel is just floating left and right... >> >> The main issue I have with it is this. NFS5 was a good game. Why >> couldn't they just take that and make modifications to it. I mean, WHY >> could they not release something that was better? Should NFS6 not be >> an improvement over NFS5? >> >> As far as I am concerned....the developers of the game should have >> spent their time fishing...or sleeping...or whatever...Just don't code >> any more games....PLEASE! >> >> Final verdict on the game: Certainly not worth the time it takes to >> pick it up from the shop - even if it was free. Back to NFS5... >Duh, if it is a sim, it is NOT a car sim. Read my other responses in this thread
In article <[email hidden]>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= says...
Quoted text (56 lines)
> >There is no gravity in Tetris; the blocks don't fall at a constant speed but in >"steps". However, Hot Pursuit 2 DOES simulate gravity (among other physics) so >it IS a sim. Duh. > >Learning to think relatively will help you understand how just about every game >is a sim and that there are DEGREES (hence the relativity) of simulation. > >Nick wrote: > >> I think you are confused about the word 'simulation'. A game like >> tetris, where the blocks fall down the screen, is not in any way a >> simulation, but it does have some idea of gravity. The blocks fall at >> a constant speed, so there is no resultant force acting on the block, >> so either there is no gravitational force acting on the block, or the >> block has reached terminal velocity, where the air resistance stops it >> from accelerating towards the ground. We can discount this second >> theory because if you had a block which was straight (ie four squares >> in a row), it would slow down when you rotated it from vertical to >> horizontal, as there would be more air resistance. So tetris does not >> model air resistance. Therefore, it does not 'simulate' gravity. It >> does however have a 'notion' of gravity, as the blocks move down the >> screen (pixel by pixel), instead of up or diagonally or some other >> direction. That is obvious, but I spelled it out for you. >> >> A 'simulation' would actually model the equations of motion which can >> be used to calculate the gravitational force on an object. Usually, >> -9.81m/(s^2) will suffice as an approximation of gravitational >> acceleration at the Earth's surface, and when that value of >> acceleration is applied to an object, it falls in a realistic manner. >> Technically, a true 'simulation' would calculate the equation G = (m1 >> * m2)/(r^2) for two masses, at a distance r from each other. This is a >> more complete 'simulation' of the effects of gravity, and works in >> cases where the first one does not (ie not at the surface of planet >> Earth, or where another large mass is concerned). Usually for a game, >> this is not necessary, as it approximates to -9.81m/(s^2) anyway. >> >> So, in conclusion, just because something moves downwards through the >> air, or moves forwards when you push a button marked 'accelerator', >> doesn't mean it is a 'simulation'. Even the best racing 'sims' we play >> today, 'simulate' an extremely small amount of what is actually >> happening, for example, most racing 'sims' model a car engine as two >> torque curves, one at 100% throttle, and one at 0%. They then linearly >> interpolate between these two values at a given RPM to get a resultant >> torque. Is that simulating an engine? In absolutely no way whatsoever, >> but it approximates the output you would get in real life. Does >> Pacejka 'simulate' how tyres work? No, it is a mathematical function >> which generates a graph, and this graph loosely fits over someone's >> experimental data from a real tyre. >> >> You are thinking that the most basic game is a 'simulation' in the >> most basic sense, while something like NR2002 is a full 'simulator'. >> Well, NR2002 is a 'simulation' in the most basic sense, and we have >> yet to see where more computing power and more understanding of the >> nature of physics will lead us in decades to come. >A sim is a sim; the vehicle is irrelevant. Just because HP2 is a BAD sim doesn't mean it's not a sim at all. Duh.
SH wrote:
Quoted text (41 lines)
> It may be a sim but it's not a car sim. For a car sim, you would expect the car > to handle like one. It handles more like a boat or a snowmobile.... > > In article <[email hidden]>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= says... > > > >Just because NFSHP2 isn't as GOOD a sim as NFS5 doesn't mean it's still not a > >sim. The NFS series IS a sim (among other things: arcade/action driving sim). > > > >SH wrote: > > > >>Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >>news:<[email hidden]>... > >> > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a > >>> simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than most sims, > >>> it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some "die-hard sim fans" > >> > may say. > >> > >> I am NOT a die-hard sim fan but I think it is fair to say that in a > >> lot of ways Hot Pursuit 2...at least for the PC... is COMPLETE CRAP! > >> > >> For one, if it is a sim, then it is a sim of a boat on asphalt. The > >> steering lags (it also lacks...of course), is far from precise and the > >> handling of the cars is a real joke! > >> > >> The graphics are not as much of an improvement as one would expect > >> after over two years since NFS:PU was released. > >> > >> Force feedback is also pretty crap. There is virtually no road grip. > >> Even when set to 100% the wheel is just floating left and right... > >> > >> The main issue I have with it is this. NFS5 was a good game. Why > >> couldn't they just take that and make modifications to it. I mean, WHY > >> could they not release something that was better? Should NFS6 not be > >> an improvement over NFS5? > >> > >> As far as I am concerned....the developers of the game should have > >> spent their time fishing...or sleeping...or whatever...Just don't code > >> any more games....PLEASE! > >> > >> Final verdict on the game: Certainly not worth the time it takes to > >> pick it up from the shop - even if it was free. Back to NFS5...Read MY other response in this thread. Oh and do learn to think relatively, eh? Silly git.
SH wrote:
Quoted text (58 lines)
> Duh, if it is a sim, it is NOT a car sim. Read my other responses in this thread > > In article <[email hidden]>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= says... > > > >There is no gravity in Tetris; the blocks don't fall at a constant speed but in > >"steps". However, Hot Pursuit 2 DOES simulate gravity (among other physics) so > >it IS a sim. Duh. > > > >Learning to think relatively will help you understand how just about every game > >is a sim and that there are DEGREES (hence the relativity) of simulation. > > > >Nick wrote: > > > >> I think you are confused about the word 'simulation'. A game like > >> tetris, where the blocks fall down the screen, is not in any way a > >> simulation, but it does have some idea of gravity. The blocks fall at > >> a constant speed, so there is no resultant force acting on the block, > >> so either there is no gravitational force acting on the block, or the > >> block has reached terminal velocity, where the air resistance stops it > >> from accelerating towards the ground. We can discount this second > >> theory because if you had a block which was straight (ie four squares > >> in a row), it would slow down when you rotated it from vertical to > >> horizontal, as there would be more air resistance. So tetris does not > >> model air resistance. Therefore, it does not 'simulate' gravity. It > >> does however have a 'notion' of gravity, as the blocks move down the > >> screen (pixel by pixel), instead of up or diagonally or some other > >> direction. That is obvious, but I spelled it out for you. > >> > >> A 'simulation' would actually model the equations of motion which can > >> be used to calculate the gravitational force on an object. Usually, > >> -9.81m/(s^2) will suffice as an approximation of gravitational > >> acceleration at the Earth's surface, and when that value of > >> acceleration is applied to an object, it falls in a realistic manner. > >> Technically, a true 'simulation' would calculate the equation G = (m1 > >> * m2)/(r^2) for two masses, at a distance r from each other. This is a > >> more complete 'simulation' of the effects of gravity, and works in > >> cases where the first one does not (ie not at the surface of planet > >> Earth, or where another large mass is concerned). Usually for a game, > >> this is not necessary, as it approximates to -9.81m/(s^2) anyway. > >> > >> So, in conclusion, just because something moves downwards through the > >> air, or moves forwards when you push a button marked 'accelerator', > >> doesn't mean it is a 'simulation'. Even the best racing 'sims' we play > >> today, 'simulate' an extremely small amount of what is actually > >> happening, for example, most racing 'sims' model a car engine as two > >> torque curves, one at 100% throttle, and one at 0%. They then linearly > >> interpolate between these two values at a given RPM to get a resultant > >> torque. Is that simulating an engine? In absolutely no way whatsoever, > >> but it approximates the output you would get in real life. Does > >> Pacejka 'simulate' how tyres work? No, it is a mathematical function > >> which generates a graph, and this graph loosely fits over someone's > >> experimental data from a real tyre. > >> > >> You are thinking that the most basic game is a 'simulation' in the > >> most basic sense, while something like NR2002 is a full 'simulator'. > >> Well, NR2002 is a 'simulation' in the most basic sense, and we have > >> yet to see where more computing power and more understanding of the > >> nature of physics will lead us in decades to come.Duh, in that case every game is a sim. One would think that if you have a car
game, in order to consider it a sim it would have to simulate a car....
Anyway, let's say it is a very unrealistic sim.....
Either way it is a useless piece of shit that isn't worth one cent.
In article <[email hidden]>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= says...
Quoted text (50 lines)
> >A sim is a sim; the vehicle is irrelevant. Just because HP2 is a BAD sim doesn't >mean it's not a sim at all. Duh. > >SH wrote: > >>It may be a sim but it's not a car sim. For a car sim, you would expect the car >> to handle like one. It handles more like a boat or a snowmobile.... >> >>In article <[email hidden]>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= says... >> > >>>Just because NFSHP2 isn't as GOOD a sim as NFS5 doesn't mean it's still not a >>>sim. The NFS series IS a sim (among other things: arcade/action driving sim). >> > >> >SH wrote: >> > >> >>Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> >>news:<[email hidden]>... >> >> > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a >>>>> simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than most >>sims, >>>>> it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some "die-hard sim >>fans" >> >> > may say. >> >> >> >> I am NOT a die-hard sim fan but I think it is fair to say that in a >> >> lot of ways Hot Pursuit 2...at least for the PC... is COMPLETE CRAP! >> >> >> >> For one, if it is a sim, then it is a sim of a boat on asphalt. The >> >> steering lags (it also lacks...of course), is far from precise and the >> >> handling of the cars is a real joke! >> >> >> >> The graphics are not as much of an improvement as one would expect >> >> after over two years since NFS:PU was released. >> >> >> >> Force feedback is also pretty crap. There is virtually no road grip. >> >> Even when set to 100% the wheel is just floating left and right... >> >> >> >> The main issue I have with it is this. NFS5 was a good game. Why >> >> couldn't they just take that and make modifications to it. I mean, WHY >> >> could they not release something that was better? Should NFS6 not be >> >> an improvement over NFS5? >> >> >> >> As far as I am concerned....the developers of the game should have >> >> spent their time fishing...or sleeping...or whatever...Just don't code >> >> any more games....PLEASE! >> >> >> >> Final verdict on the game: Certainly not worth the time it takes to >> >> pick it up from the shop - even if it was free. Back to NFS5... >Carl Ribbegaardh wrote:
Yes, and anyone who argues with me is a ****! :)
Quoted text (57 lines)
> > "Eep²" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > > > "Eep²" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > "Mr. Plow" wrote: > > > > > > > > > Eep² <[email hidden]> wrote in > > > > > news:[email hidden]: > > > > > > > > > > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts > as a > > > > > > simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than > > > > > > most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite what > some > > > > > > "die-hard sim fans" may say. > > > > > > > > > > Oh not YOU again, Mr. Literal, Mr. Clinton, that depends on what > the > > > > > meaning of "is" is... > > > > > > > > > > Ok, so the cars don't fly, or go straight through solid objects. > There > > > > > are some physics at work. But when people say a "sim" they mean > it's > > > > > pretty close to Real Life(tm). I'd like to see you drive half the > speed of > > > > > NFS6 and stay on the road. I'd like to see you collide with a tree > at 150 > > > > > MPH and drive away. Please, won't you try it?? > > > > > > > > > > The presence of some physics doesn't mean a game is a sim. Is > Super > > > > > Mario Brothers a sim because it has gravity? > > > > > > > > Yes, it is--relatively. Learn to think relatively and you'll > understand > > > how just about EVERY game is a sim and how the NFS series is a driving > sim. > > > Attempt to think, nitwit. > > > > > > > > > > While your'e at it; could you please elaborate the true meaning of > "arcade" > > > as well? > > > > I think "arcade" is even more obtuse and vague but to me it basically > applies to fairly simple (read "mindless") games with LOTS of action and > very little thought needed to play (which is why "arcade" games make up most > console games since they're mainly directed towards kids). "Arcade" mostly > includes elements from platform, sim, and puzzle genres but, of course, > aren't limited to them only. > > > > Is NFS6 an arcade title by your definition?SH wrote:
> Duh, in that case every game is a sim.
Relatively, yes.
> One would think that if you have a car game, in order to consider it a sim it would have to simulate a car....
Duh--which the NFS series does; hence why it's a driving sim series.
> Anyway, let's say it is a very unrealistic sim.....
Glad to see you finally understand.
> Either way it is a useless piece of shit that isn't worth one cent.
I still haven't played it but it LOOKS good anyway and gives SOME gameplay; hence it's worth SOMETHING--just not to you. <shrug>
Quoted text (50 lines)
> In article <[email hidden]>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= says... > > > >A sim is a sim; the vehicle is irrelevant. Just because HP2 is a BAD sim doesn't > >mean it's not a sim at all. Duh. > > > >SH wrote: > > > >>It may be a sim but it's not a car sim. For a car sim, you would expect the car > >> to handle like one. It handles more like a boat or a snowmobile.... > >> > >>In article <[email hidden]>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= says... > >> > > >>>Just because NFSHP2 isn't as GOOD a sim as NFS5 doesn't mean it's still not a > >>>sim. The NFS series IS a sim (among other things: arcade/action driving sim). > >> > > >> >SH wrote: > >> > > >> >>Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> >>news:<[email hidden]>... > >> >> > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a > >>>>> simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than most > >>sims, > >>>>> it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some "die-hard sim > >>fans" > >> >> > may say. > >> >> > >> >> I am NOT a die-hard sim fan but I think it is fair to say that in a > >> >> lot of ways Hot Pursuit 2...at least for the PC... is COMPLETE CRAP! > >> >> > >> >> For one, if it is a sim, then it is a sim of a boat on asphalt. The > >> >> steering lags (it also lacks...of course), is far from precise and the > >> >> handling of the cars is a real joke! > >> >> > >> >> The graphics are not as much of an improvement as one would expect > >> >> after over two years since NFS:PU was released. > >> >> > >> >> Force feedback is also pretty crap. There is virtually no road grip. > >> >> Even when set to 100% the wheel is just floating left and right... > >> >> > >> >> The main issue I have with it is this. NFS5 was a good game. Why > >> >> couldn't they just take that and make modifications to it. I mean, WHY > >> >> could they not release something that was better? Should NFS6 not be > >> >> an improvement over NFS5? > >> >> > >> >> As far as I am concerned....the developers of the game should have > >> >> spent their time fishing...or sleeping...or whatever...Just don't code > >> >> any more games....PLEASE! > >> >> > >> >> Final verdict on the game: Certainly not worth the time it takes to > >> >> pick it up from the shop - even if it was free. Back to NFS5...Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> A sim is a sim; the vehicle is irrelevant. Just because HP2 is a BAD sim doesn't mean it's not a sim at all. Duh.
>
>
So bad sim = arcade game?
Bad sims tend to be more "arcadey", yes.
e f wrote:
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> > A sim is a sim; the vehicle is irrelevant. Just because HP2 is a BAD sim doesn't mean it's not a sim at all. Duh.
>
> So bad sim = arcade game?
On 2 Nov 2002 23:21:29 -0800, [email hidden] (e f) wrote
something like this:
>Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
>> A sim is a sim; the vehicle is irrelevant. Just because HP2 is a BAD sim doesn't mean it's not a sim at all. Duh.
>>
> So bad sim = arcade game?
And bad arcade game = NFS6.
--
- Igor -
In article <[email hidden]>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= says...
Actually it doesn't. It is REALLY a boat simulator but they accidentally used
the 3D model for a car and made the river grey/black/brown instead of some
blue-ish color. Must be very poluted ;-)
Quoted text (11 lines)
> >SH wrote: > >> Duh, in that case every game is a sim. > >Relatively, yes. > >>One would think that if you have a car game, in order to consider it a sim it >>would have to simulate a car.... > >Duh--which the NFS series does; hence why it's a driving sim series.Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> Bad sims tend to be more "arcadey", yes.
>
I don't think Need for Speed (with the possible exception of Porsche
Unleashed) is a sim. If the new Hot Pursuit 2 has the same physics
and feel as Need for Speed 4, then I definitely don't condiser it a
sim.
Some reasons I don't think this game is a sim, and is in fact an
arcade racer:
1) The feel is all wrong. The cars don't seem like they are driving
so much as flying. The inertia and friction seem totally bogus.
2) Where's a spinout? I haven't seen a car spinout yet in NFSIV.
3) The courses. The tracks are very narrow and twisty. They are all
suppossed to be street courses and not road courses, but somehow you
combine them with the physics and it further erodes the sense you are
really driving.
4) AI cars don't look like they are driving so much as floating around
the track.
Now let's compare it to games that are sims (GPL, Sports Car GT,
Nascar Heat, etc, etc.), and some of their characteristics:
1) The physics are solid- the physics aren't just a bunch of simple
canned routines. Step on the gas, the car shifts backwards a bit,
step on the brake, the car leans frontward.
2) Cars do spinout. There's variable levels of grip the tires
encounter. Some sims even go so far as to model lack of traction
control or anti-lock brakes, so you can even spin out by pushing down
on the gas too fast, or lock the wheels by slamming on the brakes.
3) You can use real racing strategies on the courses. You learn the
courses and follow the racing line, apply brakes at the appropriate
time. IT's not just a matter of mashing a button and jerking left or
right like Pole Position.
Frankly, I find the arcade racers like NFSIV harder to drive than
sim racers. Why? Because the physics in an arcade racer will vary so
much from game to game, whereas a sim racer will have more consistent
physics. Once you get to grips with the real physical model, it's
easier to go from game to game and bring the same skills. To top this
off, the controls in the arcade racers are usually not optimized for a
wheel- you can't adjust the degree of linearity of the wheel, or the
steering ratios, and the courses are usually setup so you will drive
faster with a gamepad anyways. So it comes down to really twitchy
driving.
The NFS series is still a sim--just not as "hardcore" a sim as those other series you mentioned. Learn to think relatively.
e f wrote:
Quoted text (51 lines)
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > Bad sims tend to be more "arcadey", yes. > > I don't think Need for Speed (with the possible exception of Porsche > Unleashed) is a sim. If the new Hot Pursuit 2 has the same physics > and feel as Need for Speed 4, then I definitely don't condiser it a > sim. > > Some reasons I don't think this game is a sim, and is in fact an > arcade racer: > > 1) The feel is all wrong. The cars don't seem like they are driving > so much as flying. The inertia and friction seem totally bogus. > > 2) Where's a spinout? I haven't seen a car spinout yet in NFSIV. > > 3) The courses. The tracks are very narrow and twisty. They are all > suppossed to be street courses and not road courses, but somehow you > combine them with the physics and it further erodes the sense you are > really driving. > > 4) AI cars don't look like they are driving so much as floating around > the track. > > Now let's compare it to games that are sims (GPL, Sports Car GT, > Nascar Heat, etc, etc.), and some of their characteristics: > > 1) The physics are solid- the physics aren't just a bunch of simple > canned routines. Step on the gas, the car shifts backwards a bit, > step on the brake, the car leans frontward. > > 2) Cars do spinout. There's variable levels of grip the tires > encounter. Some sims even go so far as to model lack of traction > control or anti-lock brakes, so you can even spin out by pushing down > on the gas too fast, or lock the wheels by slamming on the brakes. > > 3) You can use real racing strategies on the courses. You learn the > courses and follow the racing line, apply brakes at the appropriate > time. IT's not just a matter of mashing a button and jerking left or > right like Pole Position. > > Frankly, I find the arcade racers like NFSIV harder to drive than > sim racers. Why? Because the physics in an arcade racer will vary so > much from game to game, whereas a sim racer will have more consistent > physics. Once you get to grips with the real physical model, it's > easier to go from game to game and bring the same skills. To top this > off, the controls in the arcade racers are usually not optimized for a > wheel- you can't adjust the degree of linearity of the wheel, or the > steering ratios, and the courses are usually setup so you will drive > faster with a gamepad anyways. So it comes down to really twitchy > driving.Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> The NFS series is still a sim--just not as "hardcore" a sim as those other series you mentioned. Learn to think relatively.
>
No, Eep. Learn to just THINK. Fuck that relative shit. NFS just
doesn't have anything more than simple, arcade physics.
And who made you an expert on driving games? When you buy a racing
wheel and put in some laps in one of the aforementioned sims, then
come back and lecture me on what's a sim. You probably don't even own
a gamepad or a joystick. And a driving game you can play with the
keyboard and mouse isn't a sim, bub.
e f wrote:
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> > The NFS series is still a sim--just not as "hardcore" a sim as those other series you mentioned. Learn to think relatively.
>
> No, Eep. Learn to just THINK. Fuck that relative shit. NFS just
> doesn't have anything more than simple, arcade physics.
Learn to think YOURSELF, putz. NFS5 has the best physics of all the NFS games; hence, the NFS series as a whole is more than simple arcade physics; hence the arcade driving sim classification. Get over it.
> And who made you an expert on driving games? When you buy a racing
> wheel and put in some laps in one of the aforementioned sims, then
> come back and lecture me on what's a sim. You probably don't even own
> a gamepad or a joystick. And a driving game you can play with the
> keyboard and mouse isn't a sim, bub.
Sure it is.
Learning to think relatively would help your delusioned state of mind, champ.
>"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote
> NFS5 has the best physics of all the NFS games
Wow, Eep clearly doesn't know anything about racing simulations.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
ymenard wrote:
>
> >"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote
> > NFS5 has the best physics of all the NFS games
>
> Wow, Eep clearly doesn't know anything about racing simulations.
And you find this surprising because......?
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--
Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> Learn to think YOURSELF, putz. NFS5 has the best physics of all the NFS games; hence, the NFS series as a whole is more than simple arcade physics; hence the arcade driving sim classification. Get over it.
>
No, as a whole NFS is mostly simple physics, "Pole Position"
racing. One exception is just that, an exception. Again, Eep, you
are splitting hairs.
> Learning to think relatively would help your delusioned state of mind, champ.
Delusional? I'm not the one who can't tell what's real physics from
bogus arcade physics.
>"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote
> > Wow, Eep clearly doesn't know anything about racing simulations.
>
> And you find this surprising because......?
Baaaaahhhhhh <insert cynical MP line>
;)
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
e f wrote:
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
>
> > Learn to think YOURSELF, putz. NFS5 has the best physics of all the NFS games; hence, the NFS series as a whole is more than simple arcade physics; hence the arcade driving sim classification. Get over it.
> >
>
> No, as a whole NFS is mostly simple physics, "Pole Position" racing.
The NFS series has FAR more (realistic) physics than Pole Position.
> One exception is just that, an exception. Again, Eep, you
> are splitting hairs.
No, you just can't seem to be able to think relatively. <shrug>
> > Learning to think relatively would help your delusioned state of mind, champ.
>
> Delusional? I'm not the one who can't tell what's real physics from
> bogus arcade physics.
Sorry, but not even the most hardcore of sims have absolutely realistic physics. Hence, game physics is relative.
Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
physics.
>
> Sorry, but not even the most hardcore of sims have absolutely realistic physics. Hence, game physics is relative.
It's going around in circles, yet again. You know, Eep, you should
really stick to subjects you know even a little about when you go off
pontificating. It's obvious you have never played a real driving
simulation, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing a ridiculous premise.
Sure I've played a "real" (relatively) driving sim. Hell, I've even driven a REAL <gasp> car and I can tell you that NO computer driving sim can top the real thing...yet.
Note: I wouldn't HAVE to "go off ponticating" if you didn't go off being a ditz. Attempt to think before replying to my messages and perhaps I won't respond so negatively towards such incompetence in the future. <blink> The premise is sound and has support; you simply choose not to accept that support. <shrug>
Just because the NFS series isn't as "hardcore" a driving sim as some other games doesn't mean it's NOT a driving sim series; it is whether you want to admit it or not, sorry to have to be the one to burst your elite driving simmer fanclub bubble, bub. <snicker>
e f wrote:
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > > Sorry, but not even the most hardcore of sims have absolutely realistic physics. Hence, game physics is relative. > > It's going around in circles, yet again. You know, Eep, you should > really stick to subjects you know even a little about when you go off > pontificating. It's obvious you have never played a real driving > simulation, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing a ridiculous premise.Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> Sure I've played a "real" (relatively) driving sim.
Right... Yet you don't say which one.
> Hell, I've even driven a REAL <gasp> car and I can tell you that NO computer >driving sim can top the real thing...yet.
Have you driven said car at 170 miles per hour?
Yeah, I bet driving your Yugo around is really thrilling, Eep.
>
> Note: I wouldn't HAVE to "go off ponticating" if you didn't go off being a >ditz.
It's all relative. You are a bigger Ditz.
>Attempt to think before replying to my messages and perhaps I won'trespond so >negatively towards such incompetence in the future.
Incompetence? Buahahahhhh! I'm not the one that doesn't know what
what a tachometer measures.
><blink>
There's that Tourette's again.
>The premise is sound and has support; you simply choose not to acceptthat support.
My premise is that you are full of shit.
><shrug>
You really should have that looked at, you know. Your doctor needs
to up your haloperidol.
>
> Just because the NFS series isn't as "hardcore" a driving sim as some other games doesn't mean it's NOT a driving sim series; it is whether you want to admit it or not, sorry to have to be the one to burst your elite driving simmer fanclub bubble, bub. <snicker>
>
You're just jealous.
e f wrote:
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> > Sure I've played a "real" (relatively) driving sim.
>
> Right... Yet you don't say which one.
Because I haven't played many and it's been a while, but I think they were Nascar 2000 and a Formula 1 one--but both were DAMN boring. I prefer NFS5 which IS the most realistic sim of the NFS series.
> > Hell, I've even driven a REAL <gasp> car and I can tell you that NO computer >driving sim can top the real thing...yet.
>
> Have you driven said car at 170 miles per hour?
No, but simulation doesn't occur any more at that speed than it does at 17 mph.
> Yeah, I bet driving your Yugo around is really thrilling, Eep.
<yawn>
You didn't show shit, if I recall. Instead you continually prove with each reply that you can't have independent thought. It's quite sad really...
<pats your wittle prepubescant head> That's nice. Run along now.
> > Just because the NFS series isn't as "hardcore" a driving sim as some other games doesn't mean it's NOT a driving sim series; it is whether you want to admit it or not, sorry to have to be the one to burst your elite driving simmer fanclub bubble, bub. <snicker>
> >
>
> You're just jealous.
You're just filtered since you've proven even after a nick change you STILL can't evolve. Sad, twit, sad...
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > Note: I wouldn't HAVE to "go off ponticating" if you didn't go off being a >ditz. > > It's all relative. You are a bigger Ditz. > > >Attempt to think before replying to my messages and perhaps I won't > respond so >negatively towards such incompetence in the future. > > Incompetence? Buahahahhhh! I'm not the one that doesn't know what > what a tachometer measures.Quoted text (8 lines)
> ><blink> > > There's that Tourette's again. > > >The premise is sound and has support; you simply choose not to accept > that support. > > My premise is that you are full of shit.Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> e f wrote:
>
> > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> Because I haven't played many and it's been a while, but I think they were Nascar 2000 and a Formula 1 one--but both were DAMN boring. I prefer NFS5 which IS the most realistic sim of the NFS series.
>
You probably played your w4r3z3D copies for all of 3 minutes.
Hardly enough time to know what in the hell you are talking about.
> No, but simulation doesn't occur any more at that speed than it does at 17 mph.
>
A simulation, like any model, usually only starts to break down at
the extremes. Driving down a straight road at 17 mph isn't hard to
simulate.
> > Yeah, I bet driving your Yugo around is really thrilling, Eep.
>
> <yawn>
>
My point exactly.
> > You're just jealous.
>
> You're just filtered since you've proven even after a nick change you STILL can't evolve. Sad, twit, sad...
Awe, did I hurt your feelings? Dat's too bad... Cherry boy!
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:36:48 GMT, Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Just because NFSHP2 isn't as GOOD a sim as NFS5 doesn't mean it's still not a sim.
Actually it does mean it's not a sim.
Simulation implies the intent, of the developers, to simulate
something. If you believe that the developers truly believed they were
accurately simulating any of the aspects of NFSHP2 you are sadly
mistaken. Rather they were going for a "suspension of disbelief"
approach.
Nothing essentially wrong with that, except that it gives people like
you the chance to troll.
"Moa'Dib" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> Rather they were going for a "suspension of disbelief" approach.
>
Call me crazy, but when I hear "suspension of disbelief" in an automotive
context, my stream-of-consciousness mind starts thinking of VW swing axles,
old Triumph Spitfires, leaf springs, live axles...
Stephen
Renault 5 and their suspension, or maybe the Austin Metro with it's
Hydro-Elastic-fantastic suspension which gave different handling
characteristics and ride height depending on the ambient air temperature...
Oh, wait a minute, they put that on the MGF too until MG got hold of it...
One of the funniest things I've seen was a friend of mine who rolled up at a
go-kart race meeting in an old Princes (sod off big metro really) with a
flat suspension system. Turns out he'd had a blow-out on the system
somewhere. The drivers side of the car was sat on the bump-stops, the other
was mile high.
Anyway, he drove it home, proclaiming that it was OK, but then admitted that
he'd put his back out by driving a car with no suspension at normal speeds.
Still, made me larf :o)
"Stephen Ferguson" <fergusonATbluewinDOTch> wrote in message
news:3dd4a690$[email hidden]...
axles,
> old Triumph Spitfires, leaf springs, live axles...
>
> Stephen
>
>
Quoted text (10 lines)
> > "Moa'Dib" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > Rather they were going for a "suspension of disbelief" approach. > > > > Call me crazy, but when I hear "suspension of disbelief" in an automotive > context, my stream-of-consciousness mind starts thinking of VW swingHP2 is a racing simulation. Next...
Moa'Dib wrote:
Quoted text (14 lines)
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:36:48 GMT, Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Just because NFSHP2 isn't as GOOD a sim as NFS5 doesn't mean it's still not a sim. > > Actually it does mean it's not a sim. > > Simulation implies the intent, of the developers, to simulate > something. If you believe that the developers truly believed they were > accurately simulating any of the aspects of NFSHP2 you are sadly > mistaken. Rather they were going for a "suspension of disbelief" > approach. > > Nothing essentially wrong with that, except that it gives people like > you the chance to troll."Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> HP2 is a racing simulation. Next...
.... Century ?
It certainly doesn't simulate any current form of automotive racing
--
Ian P
<email invalid due to spam>
It doesn't? How about streetcar racing? "Racing" is relative and HARDLY needs spectators and commentators to qualify as the ONLY kind of racing.
Ian P wrote:
Quoted text (7 lines)
> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > HP2 is a racing simulation. Next... > > .... Century ? > > It certainly doesn't simulate any current form of automotive racingYou obviously don't know a whole lot about cars if you think that this game
in any way simulates driving one, let alone racing one.
Do real cars pivot from the centre ? I rest my case ;)
While I'm at it, why on earth do you insist on crossposting to
rec.autos.simulators when you don't seem to be interested in auto simulators
?
--
Ian P
<email invalid due to spam>
"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> It doesn't? How about streetcar racing? "Racing" is relative and HARDLY
needs spectators and commentators to qualify as the ONLY kind of racing.
>
> Ian P wrote:
>
> > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:[email hidden]...
> > > HP2 is a racing simulation. Next...
> >
> > .... Century ?
> >
> > It certainly doesn't simulate any current form of automotive racing
>
Ian P wrote:
>
> While I'm at it, why on earth do you insist on crossposting to
> rec.autos.simulators when you don't seem to be interested in auto simulators
> ?
Because he's a troll....?
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
http://www.theuspits.com
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--
Ian P wrote:
> You obviously don't know a whole lot about cars if you think that this game
> in any way simulates driving one, let alone racing one.
>
> Do real cars pivot from the centre ? I rest my case ;)
<shrug> Car pivot is HARDLY the only thing about cars that can be simulated. Duh.
> While I'm at it, why on earth do you insist on crossposting to
> rec.autos.simulators when you don't seem to be interested in auto simulators
> ?
See above. Attempt to think.
Quoted text (14 lines)
> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > It doesn't? How about streetcar racing? "Racing" is relative and HARDLY > needs spectators and commentators to qualify as the ONLY kind of racing. > > > > Ian P wrote: > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > HP2 is a racing simulation. Next... > > > > > > .... Century ? > > > > > > It certainly doesn't simulate any current form of automotive racingEep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> It doesn't? How about streetcar racing? "Racing" is relative and HARDLY needs spectators and commentators to qualify as the ONLY kind of racing.
>
>
Spectators and commentary have nothing to do with whether a game is
sim or arcade. They could create a pure fantasy racing game, and as
long as the physics were credible, it wouldn't be an arcade racer.
"Powerslide" is a fantasy game by Ratbag, it doesn't simulate any
real racing, but the physics are ten times better than anything in
Need for Speed. At least Powerslide simulates varying levels of grip
and spins and more degrees of freedom (your car can be pointed one
way, but moving in another). The fact is, the physics in NFS are only
believable if you are pre-pubescent teen who's never driven a real car
and has pretty much been limited to "slot cars"- the driving on rails
is sure there. Now, I'll make an exception for Porsche Unleashed, but
that's the only one (EA really did a stupid move by not following up
with it, maybe an American sports car game/sim of the same caliber,
but I guess lightning doesn't strike twice). Even NFS Porsche's
actual racing is fantasy- there aren't any real leagues like the ones
in the game, but the physics are credible.
NFS HP2 is pure console fodder, Eep. It's not meant to have any
learning curve and all the depth of "Pole Position". That stuff sells
on consoles, but it's redundant on PC's.
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 01:59:47 +0100, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]>
wrote something like this:
Actually he is a troll that writes his replies between expressions
like "<shrug>" and "Duh" when someone dares to challenges his "facts".
And this has HARDLY anything to do with relative thinking :P
Oh, and did I mention that he has no sense of humour?
--
- Igor -
