Why dont racing game follow Project car?

Mario Kart effectively? Yeah your correct,my Grandaughter is real good at it though.Hey how is PCars looking on Nintendo?

 

Your ignorance is astounding so I will leave it here.

It will probably be decent, that's all I can hope. Its great for a game like PCars to exist on a Nintendo platform to offer that different experience that could end up being very good commercially. That being said, that would require people being open-minded to different experiences and not judging things they have no idea of which they are talking about.

Come to think on it, that applies to you too.

 

Yes I'm ignorant,look at what Nintendo has done with You Tube,and I'm ignorant.Play on my friend.

 

Nintendo is ignorant about things like YouTube monetization. It's also ignorant to believe Mario Kart has a low skill ceiling. I'm a 1% driver in Forza games but I generally get left in the dust by fellow GTPlanet members in MK8 time trials (read: no shells or bananas, only Mushroom speed boosts). I haven't even learned the ideal drift lines on every track, much less mastered the fire-hopping technique.

Speaking of...

Meanwhile, Mario Kart 8 has sold fewer copies (so far) than any other MK game to date -- 4 million.

On the subject of the thread, a racing title that simply offers up a list of cars and tracks and lets you go racing with them is a simulator. Something with credits/XP and unlocks, defined events/championships to progress through, maybe license tests and minigames, a story mode, etc. is a videogame. Most people want to play a videogame. Andy Tudor's assertion that the credits/XP model is "broken" is just PR boasting.

It's great for SMS to try innovating the "Gran Turismo clone" genre by blurring the line between simulators and videogames, but IMHO the opportunity really boils down to a degree of complacency and inept design decisions over at Polyphony Digital and Turn 10.

 

can someone edit the title of this thread and stick an 'S' on the end please? i guess it's a language thing but it's bugging me as it's the name of the actual game we're all talking about! thanks

 

I was only responding to @SimTourist wondering how successful PCars might be, I'm not part of the Mario Kart debate. PCars doesn't need to do GT or Forza numbers to be considered wildly successful, nor is the market for a true sim racer that big, at least in my estimation. The whole car ownership/customization/game economy model has broader appeal IMO, if it's well done of course. MK numbers are completely out of sight as well.

 

Simple answer to so many questions is....if developers produce every racing titles as PCARS, then they are dead already...we got to admit it, Arcades are popular than that of the Sims....and I call myself a sim racer

 

I do know racing arcade is a different style of play and that it does not need to be like PC. But it can help as above if they make the driving a bit more technical in their games. Does not need to be hard simulation as PC is not even hard 100% simulation.

They are offering racing to their games so why not make it slightly challenging as an option? They mostly likely wont do it cause the fans are not wanting that kind of gameplay even if its helps the game. An arcade game can have many different types of game play it does not need to always be about earning cash and leveling up.

Why are they more popular?
Cause they have an RPG element to it and PC well is like real life?

And if its more interesting then why go for PC then? If you can have more fun in the crew then PC why not just play the crew? Or would you pay alot of money to get both?

And just look at steam and most of the reviews by players and others who have discuss it. The ratings are not very good at all for such a massive promising game. Even the World of speed was not that good at all. And drive unlimited was also rated badly.

So if level up and cash is very popular then the crew would be a hit just like the ambitious FIFA soccer game! It won top rank and just blew the developer away of how much popularity it drew! So arcade does not mean it will always be popular.

And I think Arcade games is fun not because it just arcade. Guys you got to come up with better reasons.

They include missions, cash, levels cause they wanted a racing game with this kind of style of play.
Its not about meeting that challenge of your life with another racer.
Its not about becoming a Pro on the tracks.

Its about having fun at doing different things in the game.
So fun could be driving as fast as you can with other players.
And fun could be skill missions in the crew or getting chase by police.

But its all never really hardcore serious or semi serious just a casual play style.

Like joining a club and just having fun at a sport but there is no world competition its like that with arcade games. You can join and race with other people but its not about mastering the mechanics and going semi hard core and trying to re live a real simulation.

So its just casually hanging out and doing what you want that is the arcade style.

So I can understand why someone would just want to play the crew because they are not looking for a semi simulation. They want to drive and just not worry how to control the car. Left, right, up and down is all they want to know with easy customization to their car. Just all spoon feed like a baby. No real hard focus on thinking the crew just give it all to them. Races will still be challenging but not to the extent of PC.

That is why players play these racing arcade games, there is no hard thinking and you can just drive around aimlessly.

So does not matter if ratings are bad its like the stomping Dino, terrible on steam and not recommended but if you are hungering to hunt dino its not going to matter how bad its design. And some player just dont care if its design badly. If it provides that instant gratification for hunting dino. Then their impulses would get it even though its bad idea on money!
So really are you buying the game cause it just giving you that instant fun or you buying the game cause of value?

And can the crew offer that long term value like eve online?

Anyone here have exp with the crew or NFS?

 

F355 from Sega was an 'Arcade' coin op game, but it was much closer to simulation than any other games in it's day. Try to win a race at Sugo or Long Beach with Pro setting and no assist ( H shifter, no ABS ). Granted, any casual players who never experienced serious sim driving/racing games will either crash, spin out or finish last. I have played it to death back in the day, and to this day, it still holds memorable special feeling unmatched by other games.

Sometimes I wonder what classifies as arcade ? the origin of the game ( was on arcade ), the concept of play ( collecting, time limit, exp ) or the physics ( NFS, Shift, Driveclub )

 

I'll race/drive anything. From PGR4 to Forza 5, GRID to GT and anything in between. PC sims too

If it's got wheels, I'll give it a go

 

Pcars would be a great arcade cabinet coin op game Similar in ways to Sega F355, sit in, insert coin, pick a car, a track, race setup, then race to win. Put time limit there to make sure drivers gets excited Yeah, SMS should make PCARS arcade coin op, it would be a hit like Sega F355 did.

 

and (in the title again) another one on the end of "game" too please. Her majesty would be most displeased.

 

indeed. although I thought I'd let that one slide (on this one occasion)

 

For Sims, there isn't much difference between this and AC apart from the fact PCARS is based more around a racing career (Like ToCa) and is on consoles.
For GT & Forza, they have to be kinda arcade because they are the most fun track based games so they can't be hyper realistic.
For full arcade, No point at all even thinking about trying to be realistic. That's why it's called arcade.

 

I'm just sitting here playing Blur

 

I think all 3 put together.

 

My question was what most people here consider as arcade. Either one of what I wrote could be taken as arcade depending on the person view/opinion, but nowadays younger generation often have different view as to what arcade is than back in the 80's and 90's. My Sega F355 example was to show that even in actual coin op arcade machine, it is possible to have much closer to simulation ( accuracy ) than most PC game of that era ( late 90's ), with only few are more complex in physics like GPL.

For me, the arcade simply means arcade machines. The concept of play and the physics themselves are independent of the term arcade. Sega has an arcade machine with simple concept that made it more like a hardcore simulation, a boxing simulation complete with gloves that you can wear and you have to move physically like a boxer to beat the AI boxer. It uses motion capture as input and all you can do in the game is to beat up the the other boxer and not to get KO'd. No unlocking, no progress tracking ( points, XP ) no rewards other than pride of beating up AI boxer with your own body.

What I would call games like NFS ( after the original ), Burnout, Shift, etc are casual racing games with highly/moderately simplified physics. The term racing is a simple one too, meaning the gameplay revolves around a set number of cars and laps, a start line and finish line with the focus more on the drop in, drop out gameplay, sort of quick races. Some are littered with obstacles like cops and traffic. Some have basic championship event.

Many people who called arcade usually refers to the style of play that are often similar to what found in arcade machines, but that doesn't make these games ( either on PC or console ) arcade games.

When I refer to racing simulation, the complex/realistic ones would be like Pcars, where we have full regulations, weekend sessions, championship table etc simulated ( similar to football manager games ) The driving simulation is a different aspect where in Pcars, it has highly advanced physics that simulated more aspects than most other games and in high accuracy and details, from vehicle, tire, track ( layout/surface ), weather/time of day, damage, collision and aerodynamics.

I would classify Pcars as realistic racing simulation with highly advanced physics, while the usual GT/Forza stuff would be simple/casual racing simulation with advanced physics. Maybe this is why PD chose driving simulator as their slogan. They never intended the GT series as full blown realistic racing simulation, more like basic simulation, which requires the players to coordinate and do the leg work to organize a race series. Simple format with track, laps, and cars for online, where all the little details are on the players burden ( championship/league ) The general scope of the setup in race resembles track day single race.
What about the race cars in GT ?, they are there to cater those who wanted race cars, a driving sim is not limited to certain vehicles, and PD sort of making GT like a mini catalogue, which is why Kaz gave us Tank Car, Samba Bus, or VGTs or even extreme one like Moon rover and Moon surface. A step that many find ridiculous to do as they expect GT to provide what they wanted and Kaz seems to be doing his own vision of what GT is. This reminded me of how inaccurate are the cars in GT6, except for the visual modelling accuracy which are okay but still needs work too ( Master of None )

Notice I don't use the term realistic or simcade. I don't know who invented simcade, but it sounds silly to me ( more like immature stereotypes )

Realistic is very relative and also vague in measuring a simulation, every car driving physics software have different levels of details being simulated and how accurate they are simulating each aspect/details. Then we have the input/output + feedback hardware that can elevate the experience even more. From Oculus display, thousands dollars motion rig with elaborate feedback system ( vibrations ), top dollar steering wheel/pedals, big curved panoramic screens etc.
In one end we have 80's driving simulation played with keyboard and 2d graphics, and the other end, the latest F1 pro simulator rig used by actual F1 team that costs tons of money to own and run. Both end are simulation but have very different level of realism and accuracy.
Every few years, big improvements are made in vehicle simulation used in games ( PC and console ) and they usually claimed to be realistic or the most realistic, there must so many levels of realistic from 90's to 2010's


The success of Pcars might change other game makers to follow suit the direction in terms of driving simulation level, but racing simulation from casual to realistic style would still have their own crowds/followers, regardless of how advanced the driving simulation is. Imagine a Burnout, NFS games or even GT/Forza with Pcars driving simulation level, it might just work and sells well, but someone has to make an example, SMS with Pcars will be the benchmark for years to come. Will PD and Turn 10 step up ?

 

PCARS for me is Racing Simulation toned down (just a little bit) to appeal to casual players. GT is arcade track racer with realistic physics (Same with Forza) Burnout is arcade drifting/crashing game and NFS is Burnout minus the crashing.

 

How do you define arcade ? Is street racing in NFS arcade because it's not on the track or because the simplified physics ? Both are not what define arcade game, arcade game is coin op entertainment machine.

Which part of Pcars racing simulation is toned down for casuals ? Do you mean the driving simulation aspect or the racing aspect ?

 

The fact that the driving is very easy to learn and unrealistic makes NFS arcade and for PCARS, it's because, compared to other sims I have played, it is a lot more forgiving. You can push cars a bit harder in PCARS compared to it's rivals. In fact, here's a video from YouTube showing the differences between Project CARS and iRacing.
http://www.virtualr.net/project-cars-vs-iracing-failrace-comparison

 

Then you get into the age old discussion of whether difficult = realistic by default. Race car drivers have commented numerous times that getting a car with a couple of seconds of the limit is relatively easy, getting the last couple of seconds out of the car, consistently, is what separates the good from the average drivers. In the video he even says at one point, something along the lines of, "if they games were identical visually, it would be hard to tell them apart, but for minor differences".

 

Kinda shows how realistic PCARS is, but he did say that, especially the kerbs on some tracks, were more forgiving than in iRacing. But still, both are very realistic games anyhow.

 

And racecar drivers attack curbs with abandon so it's the same question. Are more unforgiving curbs more realistic or just artificially created game difficulty? Sausage curbs of course should cause you major issues, but most modern, flat racing curbs are meant to be driven over at speed so long as you are mindful of the throttle and your steering inputs. IMO if you can just drive over them with impunity at full lateral g's with no effect that would be unrealistic to say the least. But having to be on pins and needles every time you run over a curb would be just as unrealistic as well. Somewhere in between is a happy, realistic medium, only time will tell how well this is done in Project Cars. A few more days in time actually...

 

Good point. I mean more difficult is more realistic up to a point I feel. When cars are pretty much impossible to drive fast, then it's too hard. I think PCARS does it pretty well when it comes to difficulty.