What do you consider a simulation and arcade racing game?

[ctdc67]

IMO the most important part of a simulation is the vehicles physics. The game vehicle should perform exactly as possible as real world performance(Handle,accelerate,braking...) Things like tire wear and temperature,setups, crash damage is added bonus. Qualifying and pitstops strategy is a 3rd step in making the game more racing feel.

Arcade games focus on making a vehicle perform at a level that is higher than real life. Crashes, jumps and police chases are the popular setting for these games.

 

[JohnBM01]

Well, it depends a lot on what you look for and what kind of experiences offered that make the difference between the two. Any racing/driving game offering unrealistic or exaggerated handling or set in settings outside of proper racing (such as an abandoned warehouse into the depths of a volcano) is usually an arcade-style racing game. Any game trying to replicate the dimensions and specifications of real and realistic vehicles usually notes simulation. Depending on who you ask, the word "simcade" is loved or loathed to games that offer both arcade and simulation aspects without total bias to either style. The GRID and DiRT games have been fairly considered arcade to most, but they can also somewhat be "simcade."

I identify as a sim racing fan. However, I tend to enjoy a little of arcade and simulation to be honest. In no way am I hardcore on arcade or simulation. Who you ask in regards to arcade and simulation will yield different takes on which style defines either arcade or simulation. What I discussed, though, are my own thoughts based on my years of playing various racing/driving games.

 

[Bloodytears]

Things like tire wear and temperature,setups, crash damage is added bonus.

I don't understand it. In reality it all matters the most, especially tires the only thing that connects a car with a surface, how that could be a bonus?

 

[Veinz]

The way I see it, arcade is something like Need For Speed or Forza Horizon with brake to drift physics or exaggerated amounts of grip.

Everything from GTS to iRacing has various levels of realism but I put all those on the simulation side of it.

 

[LM7325]

I tend to simplify the 2 by what camera position I am drawn to. I tend to pick the chase cam on the less realistic handling models. The more realistic feeling games find me either using the hood or cockpit camera.

 

[Wolfe]

Here's a question to add: is Hard Drivin'/Race Drivin' a simulator? Was it never a simulator? If Gran Turismo or Forza are "arcade", what is this?

The engine, transmission control, suspension, and tire physics were modeled in conjunction with Doug Milliken who was listed as a test driver in the game credits. In the 1950s his father William Milliken of Milliken Research led a team at Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory in Buffalo NY USA (later Calspan) that converted aircraft equations of motion to equations of motion for the automobile, and became one of the world's leading experts in car modeling.

--------------------------------

I don't understand it. In reality it all matters the most, especially tires the only thing that connects a car with a surface, how that could be a bonus?

The absence of tire wear/temperature, setups, or damage only results in "fixed" conditions that can still be simulated quite closely to the experience of driving a real car.

 

[Liquid]

Style and exaggeration. And it's a sliding scale, not a binary either/or, e.g. Burnout is quite arcadey but Mario Kart is very and obviously arcadey.

 

[LM7325]

Here's a question to add: is Hard Drivin'/Race Drivin' a simulator? Was it never a simulator? If Gran Turismo or Forza are "arcade", what is this?





--------------------------------

The absence of tire wear/temperature, setups, or damage only results in "fixed" conditions that can still be simulated quite closely to the experience of driving a real car.

The "Arcade" versions of both are what I consider a prototype for a modern hardcore racing SIM. I burned through many quarters playing both of these as a 12 year old.

 

[JohnBM01]

In my opinion, Hard Drivin' and Race Drivin' were both one of the first true simulators. Maybe they are criminally underrated and criminally overlooked in regards of simulation-type racing/driving games. They were difficult to control, and you also had to engage first gear from the start and after starting up the engine when racing a manual/standard car in either game. The control of the cars were not as exaggerated in handling. They were mostly slow but realistic for its time. So this was probably the first true simulation style arcade games. Maybe the best simulation-style arcade unit games was SEGA's Ferrari 355 F1 Challenge series. Even SEGA known for many amazing arcade racers delivered a sweet classic with the 355 F1 Challenge games. So definitely Hard Drivin' and Race Drivin' actually deserve more credit among the sim driving fan set.

 

[Bloodytears]

The absence of tire wear/temperature, setups, or damage only results in "fixed" conditions that can still be simulated quite closely to the experience of driving a real car.

I see it if the game have you concerned on two pedals throttle and breaks - arcade. If there more advanced settings, like in GTS - simcade, everything that wants you to keep an eye on everything, like in reality, the simulation.

 

[MagpieRacer]

To.me its very broad. I think arcade is an outdated term. Forza Horizon 4 for example can't really be called what most would say is a 'sim'. But neither could I identify with it as an arcade game, as the diving still has a lot of depth and a high skill requirement than others, however the game mechanics could be considered 'arcade'.

To me, F1 20xx is a simulation. As it is simulating the sport of F1. Forza Motorsport is a simulation as its simulating driving, ssme with Gran Turismo, Dirt Rally simulates rallying etc, you see what I'm getting at.

To me, the driving dynamics (or what most people refer to as the sim) are separate. Does F1 20xx fully simulate every aspect of the driving physics and dynamics of an F1 car, no, but its an approximation. It simulates what you think an F1 car should feel like.

Then with 'arcade' driving dynamics, again its very broad. Typically I would associate arcade racing with Sega Rally, Daytona USA etc. But to others its Need for Speed/Grid etc. Which yes, don't simulate to the point of being realistic but are an easier approximation.

Finally you then look at the game itself. A game can often be confused as being 'arcade' simply by how you play the game. Forza Horizon again being a good example of this. It has semi realistic driving physics, splashed onto an arcade like experience. Grid is the other way around, a semi realistic career structure based around multiple forms of real world motorsport, with easier accessible driving physics.

It certainly isn't clear cut to me. To often I find that fun is sacrificed in the pursuit of realism, be it a realistic experience or realistic driving. Look at Assetto Corsa for example, as good as the cars handle, the game aspect is almost non existent. Few games have bridged this gap. Forza Motorsport/Horizon, Gran Turismo, get very close to bridging this gap, if they haven't already. And hopefully pCars 3 can do the unthinkable and have something that is recognised as having very realistic driving dynamics layered into a fun underlying game.

My main bugbear with sim vs arcade has been the deluded illusion that harder equals more realistic when this simply isn't true. You see it all the time, oh xyz is too easy to drive etc. Last time I drove a performance car it was quite easy and I didn't crash it. To many thay would indicate real life is arcadey.

Tl;Dr, theres too many variables to categorically say xyz is arcade/simulation as there are multiples within each.

Arcade: Need For Speed Hot Pursuit, Daytona USA, Grid, Burnout, Dirt x

Simualtion: F1 20xx, pCars 2, Assetto Corsa, iRacing, Forza Motorsport X. Gran Turismo X, Automobilista, Dirt Rally x

Note how broad the range in each is. I think they are outdated terms in a modern world.

 

[Greycap]

Another thing is what is simulated vs. what the player is informed about.

First example: Gran Turismo tyre pressures and temperatures. They're not adjustable, especially in GT Sport the temperatures aren't given any useful information about, but they're still simulated.

It can't be pure placebo that when I go through the first sector of the Nordschleife on the first lap the car feels skittish and slippery, but if I come from the 24h layout the exact same car feels grippier. It actually surprised me a few days ago as I usually don't run the 24h layout, the car didn't feel like it normally does. In the same fashion it can't be a pure coincidence that after driving abnormally hard for a while the grip seems to fade, braking distances get longer, and after a short time taking it easier things return back to normal. All the classic symptoms of warming up and eventually overheating the tyres, but no information about it is given. The tyre pressure is probably set at the optimum grip level and left there, not having adjustable pressure doesn't mean that the tyre simulation itself doesn't exist.

The second example: Gran Turismo suspension simulation. No travel adjustment, no bump stop adjustment, but they're simulated.

I found it out by accident when playing with a friend back in the GT6 days. We were driving on the Nürburgring (I seem to spend a lot of time there) and he was having lots of trouble with very abrupt snap oversteer at certain points, lap after lap. I looked at his driving and found nothing alarming but then I got an idea. I was playing quite a lot of Grand Prix Legends at that time and what his car was doing looked every bit like how the GPL cars react when hitting the bump stops. He didn't believe me at first, "GT doesn't model that", but after asking how his car was setup I was pretty sure that it was too low and soft for the situation, and bottoming out as a result. I asked him to raise it by 10 mm to see if it works, and while it got significantly better the problem didn't disappear completely so he added another 5 mm and that was it. I've since run into the same thing several times with my own cars in GT Sport, a soft and low setup often giving very harsh power oversteer out of corners in mid-engined cars as the weight transfer pushes the outer rear suspension to the bump stop. Slight raising or stiffening cures it every time.

TL;DR - there can be much more to the simulation than the eye can see.

 

[Johnnypenso]

All racing games are simulations to some extent, they are just on different places on the scale. Some are at 1 on a scale of 100 in that the cars look like cars but don't drive anything close to their real life counterparts (Ridge Racer for eg. ) while others make a valiant attempt to simulate as much of reality as possible (ACC for example) and we can debate endlessly where they are on that 1-100 scale.

 

[MagpieRacer]

All racing games are simulations to some extent, they are just on different places on the scale. Some are at 1 on a scale of 100 in that the cars look like cars but don't drive anything close to their real life counterparts (Ridge Racer for eg. ) while others make a valiant attempt to simulate as much of reality as possible (ACC for example) and we can debate endlessly where they are on that 1-100 scale.

I liie this idea of a scale. There should be a double scale. 1-100 for the driving physics (least realistic, 100 most authentic) and 1-100 for the gameplay style. (1=less real, 100 most authentic)

Forza Horizon 4 for example could be:
70 driving physics
25 gameplay style. For a total 'sim'rating of 100.

Assetto Corsa Competizione
95 driving physics
100 gameplay style
195 sim rating

Grid 2019
30 driving physics
80 gameplay style
120 sim rating

F1 2020
80 driving physics
95 gameplay style
175 sim rating

Need for Speed Hot Pursuit
15 driving physics
20 gameplay style
35 sim rating

Wreckfest
70 driving physics
50 gameplay style
120 sim rating

Dirt Rally 2.0
80 driving physics
90 gameplay style
170 sim rating

Forza Motorsport 7
85 driving physics
60 gameplay style
145 sim rating

Gran Turismo Sport
80 driving physics
75 gameplay style
155 sim rating

pCars 2
85 driving physics
100 gameplay style
185 sim rating

You get the gist.

Cheesy as heck and probably wouldn't work by making fun games sound worse as a rating

Don't @ me for my ratings just hit them on the fly.

 

[evldave333]

Games are subjective and they cant be pigeon holed as each is unique in its own right. The whole arcade / sim thing is a construct of peoples ego's as they try differentiate their choices from others to feel better about themselves. Its a great time for driving games right now with such a varied choice & ever increasing quality, all age groups and ability levels are catered for, there really is something for everyone.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Games are subjective and they cant be pigeon holed as each is unique in its own right. The whole arcade / sim thing is a construct of peoples ego's as they try differentiate their choices from others to feel better about themselves. Its a great time for driving games right now with such a varied choice & ever increasing quality, all age groups and ability levels are catered for, there really is something for everyone.

It's not ego to discuss objectively different aspects of each game. GTS has no tire pressure adjustment in game, no brake duct/temp adjustment, no way to externally control tire temperature etc. That can be objectively compared against games that attempt to simulate those variables and how well they achieve their simulation.

 

[evldave333]

It's not ego to discuss objectively different aspects of each game. GTS has no tire pressure adjustment in game, no brake duct/temp adjustment, no way to externally control tire temperature etc. That can be objectively compared against games that attempt to simulate those variables and how well they achieve their simulation.

Its quite subjective what people deem to be a "sim" and "arcade" (which is what this thread is about) comparing individual variables is a different matter. Its a revolving door things are improving all the time and what we deem a "sim" today will be laughed at tomorrow. Accuracy is definitely getting better but falls way below reality, I would say there isnt actually a true "sim" available yet but games are evolving towards it. As for the "sim" vs "arcade" debate re ego take a look around the forums...

 

[Wolfe]

@evldave333 -- We know the sort of individuals you're talking about. It still isn't necessarily a superiority complex. Some of us find interest in the distinctions between sims, and some of us habitually root out those distinctions whenever we pick up a new title. Some of us desire certain characteristics in a game, seek out games that fulfill those characteristics, and have no interest in games that don't -- without necessarily discrediting rejected titles as "arcade" or bad games.

It also strikes me as overly deconstructive to imply that no games are definitively "arcade" or simulators just because each has its unique qualities or strengths/weaknesses. I already brought attention to the revolving door myself, but there are new arcade-style games today that are still obviously categorically distinct from even the 31-year-old Hard Drivin'.

These are not meaningless labels. They're just not always very well-thought-out when cast around.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Its quite subjective what people deem to be a "sim" and "arcade" (which is what this thread is about) comparing individual variables is a different matter. Its a revolving door things are improving all the time and what we deem a "sim" today will be laughed at tomorrow. Accuracy is definitely getting better but falls way below reality, I would say there isnt actually a true "sim" available yet but games are evolving towards it. As for the "sim" vs "arcade" debate re ego take a look around the forums...

Sim and arcade are not well defined labels which is why I tried to be more specific. You made a broad and baseless generalization about opinions and egos which slanders all the good people that try to have rational discussions based on objective analysis of each game and it's successes and failures at simulating various aspects of the driving/racing experience.

 

[evldave333]

Sim and arcade are not well defined labels which is why I tried to be more specific. You made a broad and baseless generalization about opinions and egos which slanders all the good people that try to have rational discussions based on objective analysis of each game and it's successes and failures at simulating various aspects of the driving/racing experience.

I think its more the topic is broad and undefined. Having spent alot of time on the PC3 & ACC threads in the last few days prompted those comments, and the Sim vs Arcade debate is quite polarised there. I think a better topic would have been which driving game has the best gameplay characteristics, to that end I would suggest a blend of what folks refer to in in general terms as arcade and sim provide the best experience overall. I quite like F1 and GTS which many folks subjectively define as simcade lol, although I do also enjoy AC & dirt 2 generally regarded as a sim and Ive been playing Grid & trackmania which are regarded as purely arcade... I dont think games need to be defined to be enjoyed which after all is what its all about, its entertainment. While defining something can be useful in giving a feel of a games characteristics, its best to just take a holistic approach and play everything forming your own opinions along the way.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

Short answer: you just know when you play it which game is which.

Long answer: MagpieRacer's post summed it up perfectly.

My take is, the arcade-sim distinction is a spectrum, and it's on 3 axes:
1) Physics (anything related to when you're driving) - e.g. from arcade to sim we have Mario Kart, NFS, GRID, GT/FM, AC/rF/AMS/iR/RRRE/LFS
2) Game/features (anything other than the driving itself) - in the axes above, GT is more sim than GRID, but in terms of damage and career mode structure, GRID wins
3) Time the game is released (this last one a lot of people seem to forget) - GT2 was a considered a sim back in 1998, but right now the driving simulation is probably on par with GRID

So if you can imagine a 3D graph, we could put every game ever created into that space. The caveat is, the (0,0,0) coordinate is different for each person based on their experiences with a real car, the way their brain perceives sensations, what their expectations are, their sim equipment, how long they've been gaming, etc. That's why we have so many arguments of Forza vs GT, iRacing vs rFactor, AC vs PCARS, because these games are quite close to each other on the graph. But everyone will generally agree that NFS is more arcade than GT, because the difference between these 2 games are bigger.

Also, I think we should make a distinction that we are not talking about the game's medium here (aka arcade meaning a coin-op cabinet). We can have both arcade and simulation racing games in an arcade cabinet format (e.g. F355 Challenge vs Daytona USA). And being able to be played with a wheel and pedals doesn't automatically make a game a sim.

 

[eran0004]

A simulation game is a game that primarily aims to provide a realistic process.

An arcade game is a game that primarily aims to provide entertainment and high accessibility (easy to learn, although not necessarily easy to master).

 

[daan]

Every single racing game is a simulation. It is just that some are more accurate than others.

 

[VBR]

IMHO, I think it comes down mostly to intent, & partially achievement, i.e: what the intention of the software developer is, & how well they achieve their goals.

Back in the day, literal arcade cabinet racing games had to draw people in quickly & provide an incentive to replay them again & again: afterall, they want your coin in their slot. Back in the day, literal computer racing simulations were only concerned with modelling reality as closely as possible for high end clients. Therefore, Simulation style games lean more towards simulating reality, whereas Arcade style games lean more towards creating accessible & fun experiences. However, between black & white there are infinite shades of grey: likewise, between sim & arcade racing games there are varying mixes of the two.

I consider GT games to be more towards the simulation end of the spectrum, as that's what the stated intention is. However, I also accept that some realities are not simulated at all, & some of the ones that are vary in their degree of accuracy in relation to reality. P CARS & AC , I also considered simulations for the same reason. While Driveclub simulates real world cars, I do not consider it a racing simulation but an arcade game, as the devs primary intention was not realism regarding the physics.

Then there's the lack of basis for comparability on the part of users: most people have never driven a car in anger on a race track, & out of those who have, not all of them have driven the same car in the same conditions. So, they're not comparing their experience of reality with a game, just what they assume/presume reality to be with a game. I think some people conflate this phenomenon this with the idea that it's subjective.

Then there's the fanboy effect, "MY GAME IS BETTER THAN YOUR GAME!" type arguments that proliferate on forums like these which warps the perception of reality further.