Not Buying The Hype On Next-Gen Gaming

Happy New Year.  As you may have guessed, video games in 2014 are off to a great start.  Here's what I have to say about all the new titles.

It's time for the anti-video game circlejerk!  Now I'm pretty sure everyone's seen this PS4 commercial before but here it is anyway:

This commercial is beyond cheesy and pisses me off.  Two dudebros playing their mainstream games together.  But after a while, I noticed there is more to this commercial than meets the eye.  Two things:

1. These are the same kind of games we've seen a thousand times.  Hack-and-slash medieval/fantasy game.  Racing sim.  Gritty futuristic FPS.  Originality at its finest.
2. They all involve killing people and/or destroying things.  Think about that for a sec.  Two games involve outright killing people.  The third isn't really about violence but you're encouraged to smash things to bits.  Hence for no reason at all, one dudebro rams the other into the wall, sending him into a slow-mo Burnout/Split-Second wreck.  Games thrive off of destruction/death way too much these days.

Neither of these consoles impress me.  Sure, the Xbone was one massive skidmark that MS went back and corrected but I still have disdain for because MS tried to take us for fools and I don't forget that easily.  There's also the PS4, but I'm only marginally interested it compared to the Xbone.  Sony is still trying to smuggle DRM policies into their console like Microsoft did, just a lot more covert.  Both of these consoles are vanity goods that you really don't need.  Need top-end graphics?  Get a gaming PC.  Need a wealth of new titles?  Errrm, we already had seven years of Xbox 360/PS3 games.  If you've played all of those, then you need to go outside.  Need a console that changes the channel when you tell it to?  Well, that's not a need, that's just stupid.  Come back in 2030 when everything is made out of chrome and holograms.  You know what I'm getting at here cause I already talked about it before.  I think a year or two down the road, when they fix all the bricked consoles, the price goes down, and the library grows (including a new Sega racer, fat chance...) I might invest in one but until then, screw you both.

Anyhoo, you may be surprised to find out that my family is in possession of TWO Xbox Ones.  Yes, one Xbone, two Xbones.  They were Christmas presents for two of my brothers.  It's a load of crap, I know.  We own one game at the moment--Dead Rising 3.  I watched my brother play it for about an hour.  All I have to say is I just don't really care.   The game takes place in a fictional Los Angeles, a zombie outbreak happens, and you play as some mechanic dude who turns into a macho badass.  I didn't need a plot or anything, just as long as I get to kill zombies and rescue survivors.  Off the bat, I recognize the improvement in graphics.  Great, but it wasn't as shocking of a transition as, say, Super Nintendo to Nintendo 64.  It's just the same games as before but with a slight layer of polish.

Maps of Dead Rising 1 (upper-left), Dead Rising 2 (lower-left), and Dead Rising 3 (right)

The map is bigger this time around with huge streets for driving cars.  But the problem is the environment looks so piss bland I find nothing recognizable about it whatsoever.  Sure, they put a huge emphasis on cars now but it's hard to drive anywhere without plowing over zombies and getting stuck on debris.  If I wanted to free drive around, I'd probably play Grand Theft Auto.  If I wanted to kill zombies in cool locations, I'd probably play Dead Rising 1 or 2.  Just my two cents, you enjoy the game, great for you.  If you were a Dead Rising/zombie aficionado then yeah, you'll like this just cause it gives you more stuff to kill.  Otherwise, it's really a placebo game designed to sell the Xbone, as you can tell cause the game is exlusive to that console.  It's crap cause Dead Rising 2 was available for PS3 but whatever man...Capcom and Microsoft can fudge up the game however they like so I'm not losing sleep over it.  

My brother was playing Spiderman 2 on the Gamecube, got DR3 on Christmas, beat the game in a week, and went back to Spiderman 2.  Don't think he's touched his Xbone yet since.  True story bro.

Another thing I should mention, going back to the paragraph before the previous one, is that these games don't really do anything "new" for me.  Sure, the graphics are better, there's more zombies, and they ditched the load times (sorta, you still get them when fighting psychopaths), but other than that, the gameplay STILL feels the same as games from 5-10 years ago.  Your special weapon attacks still kill zombies in that canned animation sequence.  Quick-time events.  Predictable trigger-based   Psychopaths run back and forth trading blows with you until you smack them enough times and they die.  Friendly AI is not very smart.  The thing that surprised me the most was seeing your character climb out the windshield of the wrecked car.  With new consoles bragging about "new ways to play the game," it certainly doesn't feel like it.  But as long as they keep the games running at constant 60 FPS, then I'll give them a modicum of credit for that.

As for other launch titles, all fifteen of them, you got Zoo Tycoon.  Yes, Zoo Tycoon is a launch title.  Killer Instinct is lacking in the content department.  Ryse looks pretty but it's a redundant hack & slash that'll go the way of King Kong and Eragon--such pretty launch titles but with bland gameplay.  Call of Duty, Madden, FIFA are what you expect--same game but prettier.  NBA Live 14, which was EA's response to the shit-canned NBA Elite, is a total embarassment.  Forza is a mess because the game is loaded with microtransactions like a Facebook game.  And Need for Speed's frivolous online gameplay has up to six players (that's right...SIX PLAYERS MAX, an abysmal number for an online racing game) zipping across the map far away from each other as everyone does their own thing to progress their respective campaign/story modes.  In other words, crap, crap, mega crap.

Give the consoles a few years to gel and the games should get better.  After all, the first Xbox 360 games looked like Xbox titles.  That's all well and good BUT...how much bigger can these games get before they collapse under the weight of their own production costs?  Models and worlds get more detailed, stories expand, gameplay branches rapidly, advertising money and review payola, etc.  Sure, we have tools to accelerate these things but the point is we're spending more and more money to make these games.  Remember that GTA5 required over a thousand people to make it.  Tools can't speed up the creative process much--you still need producers to sit down and think these things up.  We're outsourcing our art overseas now which I guess helps with the overhead but sucks for my art friends out there.  So expect less risk taking more and more DLC/microtransactions to milk the consumer's wallet for what it's worth.  The corporations need their money!

EDIT: A little aside, basically Kotaku posts an article about the worthless piece of crap that is the Kinect and how they are "a little it worried about it," citing how much it sucks that you're forced to buy a lackluster piece of hardware with your Xbone.  Nope, no one saw that coming, complaints about the Kinect 2.0, why who would say such a thing???  Also, I saw Madden 25 up-close and aside from the beatdown my friend put on my brother, I wasn't impressed by what I saw.

As for PS4 games, there's Gran Turismo 6.  Which is basically GT so nothing surprising like that.  Except for one feature--you can drive on the moon.  At 19 miles per hour.  I honestly don't know whether to think this is the most awesome or most useless thing in racing game history.

Compare to this gem of a racing game:

I think gaming isn't going to crash because it's so insanely popular, like today's terrible pop music.  But I've never been this jaded before about gaming in my life that I think SOMETHING has to blow up before I can get excited about these games again.  I'm done here, enjoy the hot air I'm emitted into the atmosphere.

P.S. There's no Ridge Racer launch title.  Whoops, someone tell Namco they planned their release one year late.  AWWWWWW.....

The Need For The Sense Of Speed

And a happy 2013 to you...when everyone else was shooting fireworks, I was shooting a Remington 12 Gauge and an AR-15 (at nobody, don't worry kids).  Tell me that those things aren't more impressive (and louder) than sparklers & Roman candles.

When we talk about racing games, I hear this term thrown around a lot--"sense of speed."  Well, what exactly is it?  "It's the feeling that you're going fast."  Well duh, that's what everyone wants.  But other than that, people really don't know what it is.  They just want something that feels good.  Well how do you make that good sense of speed?  I'm going to try to define it the best I can.

First of all, notice the term--sense of speed.  It's the human body's five senses.  It's like trying to explain what and why does certain art is pleasing to look at, why certain food is delicious, why certain scents elicits positive moods.  It just "does" somehow.  Like try to explain what constitutes "good" art or something.  "It's pretty and detailed."  Okay, well what's "pretty" or "detailed."  Besides, there's abstract art which is neither of these and is hugely popular.  You could consult a biologist, anthropologist, or psychiatrist for the answers to these things, but I'm going to explain this sense of speed nonsense as best as I can:

Go back to when you were in a fast vehicle, be it a car, truck, motorcycle, airplane, boat, or roller coaster.  You're sitting there then it takes off.  You start moving, but you're moving faster than usual.  It's "foreign" to you as your body begins to experience weird sensations.  G-forces pull you back.  Then you start turning as this heavy contraption leans in and out of turns, pulling you along with it.  You experience the dopamine rush as your stomach starts to turn and your hair stands on edge.  You rest in-between a state of hopelessness to complete control--you can't predict what'll happen next as you attempt to will the car to your bidding.  You're doing something super-human--the human body was never meant to go faster than, say, 25 mph.  And accompanied with the g-forces are some rumbling as the vehicle trades blows with the road and the engine lets out a hollow roar.  Maybe you're in a cool piece of machinery like a Ferrari or an F1 car.  Maybe there's some token fast-paced music similar to AC/DC or Metallica.  In other words, you're experiencing something out-of-this-world and sense of speed just takes you to that seemingly foreign world.

F1 car of speeds over 200 mph.

Suspension cam of stock car at Daytona.

Mindblowing rally racing!!!  So kinetic you can feel it!!!  Skip to 1:22.

Go to 2:50, man that's some serious horsepower.

Now...how do you get sense of speed in a video game?  Well, I'm sure if you were actually in the cockpit of those cars, yeah, the sense of speed would be really easy to pick up.  But you're actually not there (shocker).  Looking at racing sims like GT and Forza, they do a good job of transmitting real-life imagery on the screen, but if you're sitting on your couch looking at a regular TV/speaker combo playing a racing game with a regular video game controller, it's not the same thing--you don't feel the same rush as a real life driver.  So what do we do?  We have to embellish the video game.  Obviously, this is one huge advantage that video games have over real life but often, for the sake of "authenticity," racing games (particularly simulations) don't add anything new and thus the games become boring and people lose interest.

"Hello everybody, we're here in the boring world driving a boring car around a boring track at a boring speed using a boring video game controller.  You're gonna love this game."

So what should we do to improve the sense of speed?  Here, let me throw some suggestions out there, another Top 10 (err, 12) of things:

1. There needs to be some "tactile" feel of the car.  The suspension is a great thing since as the car is flung in certain direction, so do you.  Sometimes, the car trembles at a high speed, which isn't realistic, but the faster you go, the more you shake, the more you "feel" you're moving.  And when the car does some sort of hard cornering, it leans and you can feel yourself being pulled along with it.  And not just cornering to the left or right--elevation changes (going up and down hills) is great too since the car is rocking in all directions (track design is crucial).  If the car doesn't react to steering, then it might as well be a curling puck on ice--no emotion, no feeling at all.

2. Tire smoke, tire tracks, just other parts of the car that react to physics of the car (car damage, perhaps?).  I really cannot think of a good racing game that doesn't have tire smoke/tracks at all--it's mandatory.  Exhaust fumes and car damage can be a plus as long as it isn't too distracting for the player.  When it comes to Burnout, I'm not "anti-wreck" but I want it to be about fast cars, not smashing them to pieces.

Tire smoke on display as the car's rear bumper starts to kick up from excessive rear-wheel torque.

3. There needs to be a lot of easily-identifiable stuff flying by the car.  They give us scale that we've gone from point A to B in X amount of time.  Sparse environments with nothing to drive by is boring and doesn't feel like you're really passing anything.  The original OutRun does this well--there's tons of crowds, palm trees, dotted lines, overpasses, buildings, signs, even stripes in the road that just whip right past you.  Small objects are generally better than large ones since you pass those quicker.  Seriously, I talked about this in June 2011, this is a video game not a real life world.  We want stuff in our worlds.  We want to pass that stuff really quickly.

Colorful, easy to identify objects like clouds, palm trees, traffic, and white lines.

4. Camera angles.  There is no such thing as the "best" camera angle, but typically, you want the camera to hover close to the pavement and get a good view of both your car and environment you're passing by.  It really helps too if the camera doesn't just stay fixed on the car's rear bumper but rather captures the sides of the car as it is cornering to further emphasize that the car is hauling ass in a certain direction.  Ridge Racer violated this rule many years ago and I call it out today.

Should be staring at the driver-side door!  Here, I feel like the camera is fixed in place--it's weak.

5. What about the actual speed of the car?  There really is no recommended limit but going by what my Sega racers say, a good range would be between 180 to 20 mph (290 to 385 kph).  You can get away with going slower or faster if you abide by the rest of the rules...sort of, anyway.  F-Zero goes up to 500+ mph but going too fast can get really nauseating.  People can only intake so much stimuli before they get profusely ill, even if it's just a projected image and not real life.  EDIT: As for going slow (like Mario Kart slow, oooo burn), then you can't have that "sense of speed" if there is no speed in the first place.

Two radically different racing games.

If you DO go outside the speed range, then your game will have to compensate for it.  Like F-Zero GX (made by Nagoshi-San, one of the only few people who can actually handle such a beast), has huge environments with wide, gaping turns.  On the other hand, you look at something like Club Kart at its low speeds and you have to think "put the camera way close to the ground and make really tight, compact courses."  You have to play into the hand of your game's speed range and scale the "size" of the world up/down from there to make sure each is equally difficult yet still playable by the demographic you're aiming at (racing diehards?).

6. 60 Frames Per Second.  I don't care what anyone says--60 FPS is better than 30.  The best analogy is the log in the fireplace--you're gonna go with the smooth, rounded one or the rough one?  The more surface area the log puts on, the faster it will burn (in other words, the smooth log will not burn as quickly).  If you're playing a racing game at a lower FPS, then you're not catching as much of the action as you want to--you're only getting, say, 50-60% of what your brain can actually absorb.  However, with a 60 fps game (the "rough" log), you get to experience more frames of the action and it just caters to your visual senses better.  But if you MUST have 30 FPS or less, then make the frame speed consistent.  Inconsistent FPS just f***s your brain all up and isn't fun to play in any genre of action video game.


7. Control response time is paramount.  You talk about "fast" games nowadays like Super Mario Bros. or Call of Duty and when you turn, jump, or shoot, you do it INSTANTLY.  It makes you feel like you're in charge of your own destiny.  When making a racing game, if the car just slowly flops around or you have no real control over where you go, not only will you get pissed off at it, it feels more like the game is trying to usurp control over the car from you.  That's why I chew out "slow" games like Need for Speed and (now) Forza because I don't get that feeling like I'm 100% in control of the car if it's so sluggish to do anything.  This doesn't mean "make the game piss easy to cater to casuals," but I believe responsive controls are a must.


8. HUD stuff.  You don't need to stray away from HUD pieces.  As a matter of fact, they can top off the sense of speed.  For instance, Daytona USA 2.  The "slot machine" position counter, the tach needle which has a motion trail, the track map which rotates to match your car orientation, how everything shakes when you collide with something.  It blends in with the rest of the gameplay and at the same time stays out of the way of the action so no complaints.

A decent HUD interface, providing meaningful information and giving a clear shot of the car and what lies ahead.

You don't necessarily need fewer HUD pieces to be "immersive."  Split/Second is a great example of this as they chose to include very limited pieces of info in select parts of the screen.  Great.  But taking away the speedometer (only to replace it with that stupid burnt "border" that blocks parts of the screen) doesn't make the game any faster IMO and can be really annoying for racing "diehards" like me who want simple information like "where am I on the track" and "what's my current lap time?"  Is it that hard to ask?  Did Split/Second (and Ridge Racer Unbounded as well) need to reinvent what a racing game HUD needs to look like?

Oh Split/Second, how I missed thee...

EDIT: I should mention that I really do love that lap counter.  Just the flickering numbers, it's great.  Times should be down to the milliseconds (if possible...I know Daytona 1 or Scud Race didn't have three digits).

9. Motion blur is something that isn't necessary bad but I tend to frown upon.  THIS IS DEBATABLE but IMO, the more effects you introduce to the game, the worse it gets.  Some games feel the need to obfuscate part of the screen when going fast to make it seem "edgy."  Yet I don't think that is necessary.  Particle effects and whatnot that "prevent" you from absorbing the environment (and possibly cause the game to lag) just piss me off.  If you're running at 60 FPS as it is, cruising down the road at 200+ mph, you're going to have a hard enough time trying to understand your environment as it is so motion blur will come automatically.  Don't need to force these things on the user.

I searched for "motion blur" and all I got was this scrambled mess.  Don't do this.

10. Sound is phenomenally important.  After all, visuals are only 1/5th of the human senses so you have to cater to the other ones (hearing is another 1/5th).  If you're playing a racing game for about 20 hours and you have to listen to some whiny piece of crap sound effect for that entire 20 hours, it'll suck.  Get some deep, hollow engine sounds so you can "feel" the horsepower.  Makes it feel like you're situated in a tin can with that loud motor.  Get great tire, transmission, suspension, collision, EDIT: and wind sound effects.  See NASCAR suspension clip for heavenly "air tunnel audio."  You can add "contrast" to pictures to make them more colorful so do the same with sound.  Get some stereo speakers to surround you.  Easier said than done since not everyone can afford that setup.

11. Now about how you physically feel the game.  That's another 1/5th right there.  You play a racing game and there needs to be some tactile feedback like a real race car driver would.  Here's where Sega's state-of-the-art arcade cabinets come in to play.  The force feedback of trying to fight against an aggressive car (much like a cowboy tries to ride a bull) is something you really have to play into.  Not as relevant on home consoles (just make the controller shake) but something you can't discount if you're going for 100% perfection.

12. Last but not least--a racing game NEEDS great music.  It needs to be exciting and fit the tone of the game.  Sega does a great job at creating their own tunes as I've mentioned here.  Great lyrics to accompany fast-paced beats.  But if you can't create your own music, then use licensed music!  Problem is many producers (not just in games but TV & movies too) pick pretty lame "racing" music.  Like I think Coldplay is alright but it sure as hell doesn't inspire me to get up and race cars.  I can think of 100 better bands--AC/DC, Metallica, Tom Petty, Lynyrd Skynard, Powerman 5000, freakin Papa Roach (releases an album for racing game tracks), you get the picture.  But this is a pretty heavy conversation I will probably discuss in a future post.  It'll be great.

TLDR version, here's five bullet points:

1. Work on making the car display "emotion" as it drives. Stoic cars = bad, dynamic cars = good.
2. Use camera angles and track environments to catch as much detail as possible.
3. 60 FPS. Don't get too fancy with the HUD and avoid hindrances to the driving.
4. Go for solid, responsive gameplay that errs on the side of arcade physics.
5. Iterate upon sound & music until it is rich in expression.

That's my list.  You think about these things and say...which racing games are fast and which ones are not?  Do they follow these rules?  Even "bad" racing games (IMO) like Burnout and Need for Speed do some of these things properly but the ultimate ones have to be Sega racers.  Now you know about putting better sense of speed in your video games.  Click on the games on the right panel bar to look at fast game footage.  Now to go to sleep and dream about cars!

232 Stars, IT CAN BE DONE (All-Stars Racing Is Too Hard)

232 Stars.  Beat all the Grand Prix cups in 1st on Expert.  It's not impossible, people.  It only took me three days though most of it was grinding (being forced to play similar missions repeatedly).

I'M THE BEST AROUND, NOTHING'S EVER GONNA KEEP ME DOWN

232

The end of the World Tour, Thank God

DAT BOOST

When you get the last mod, the credits play again.  Hey, that's Steve and Gareth.  I know you, please hire me and we can work on Sega Racers Megamix!!!  Please reply to my e-mails!!!  DAMMIT!!!

Now, if there's one thing that has people fuming about the game, it's that the game is too hard on the hardest difficulties.  And not "hard" but just plain cheap.  Like the AI rubber-bands your ass and has 100% accuracy with weapons.  But this is a case of "you don't know what I've experienced, I saw X and Y happen, you can't dispute that."  And as usual, we draw up different conclusions about the game's AI and there's apparently NOTHING that we could do, say, or show that would change each other's minds.  But I'm going to say what I have to say anyway.

I question this claim the AI is broken because of the following:

* If these people claim to have witnessed rubber-banding on Expert, then how the hell did they even get into 1st place with an insurmountable lead for the AI to overcome?  Play a Cruis'n or Fast & Furious game in arcades and tell me that's not true rubber-banding.

* Because you get hit by a bunch of items doesn't mean the game's automatically broken.  SURPRISE, I've played the first game online as Jacky Bryant and have gone through streaks of being pinballed by all sorts of items thrown at me and I drop to last.  So the AI decides to fight fire with fire and all of a sudden, that's cheap?  For that reason, you're not 100% guaranteed to win any race because of the item aspect of the game.  You may get a Level 3 Boost, shot by an ice cube, fall into a pit, AAAAND IT'S GONE.  That's part of the game.  Go play Forza with ghosts on (can't hit each other).

* But maybe I'm too good at the game or something so I'm underestimating the game's difficulty.  I really don't claim to be a racing game pro like some think I am.  But I do "okay" to "good" at them.  Forza online is a hit-or-miss--I always lose to pros who play the game non-stop and have the best tuning setups.  I'm not close to getting WR's in Daytona 1/2 or Outrun 2.  Haven't even gotten into F-Zero GX for difficulty reasons.  And then there's Gran Turismo's licence tests.  So I'm playing GT4 and I want to unlock the Dome Zero and the Model T but I can't get all golds on the I-A and S license tests.  POLYPHONY DIGITAL BROKE THE GAME, IT'S TOO HARD...

* And even if the AI cheats...well, so what?  Some good games do this like Civilization V.  On harder levels, the AI starts with extra settlers, technologies, and happiness bonuses (to make up for the fact your CPU isn't Deep Blue).  In SASRT, it's possible to beat the game.  I did it, many others did it.  Each mission isn't an automatic win but if you perform well enough over a period of time, the ball will eventually bounce your way and you'll win. If this game were entirely luck based, then anyone can win but no, that's not happening. You will be forced to "know" the tracks and improve your technique. Sorry that it hurts to say for some people. You didn't start out playing Daytona USA or Outrun finishing in first from the start?  This has to be the first racing game in years where the AI doesn't just lay down and die and a few are apparently butt-hurt by that.

* Worst-case scenario.  If you are stuck in World Tour, then STOP PLAYING IT.  Go play something else and come back when you get better then you'll beat that mission on your first or second try.  I guarantee it.  And once you've unlocked all the characters you want, then you don't have to play that mode anymore!

scrubs.

Review-wise, the game is going good.  Still hovering in that 8-9 range which doesn't merit me going on rants.  But there's one review that sticks out (and really isn't even a review), it's the Kotaku article which answers the question "Should you play this game?" with a resounding NO.  Oh God, here we go again.  The thre main reasons for this bad review are the following:

1. BAWWWW THIS GAME IS TOO HARD -- Read above.  Wait, he can't even beat a B-class race?  C'mon, man!
2. I don't like boats or planes -- Sumo goes out of the way to add two new modes of transportation as opposed to Mario Kart's "look I'm driving on the bottom of a lake" and it sucks.
3. Track layouts don't require knowledge -- Try playing any racing game on tracks you've never seen before like Nurburgring or Complex String (from GT3).  You get better at any track you've played on multiple times.  That's common sense.

I suppose all these complaints indirectly bring up a good point and it is this--Sumo could've added a better "tutorial" to help you improve quickly.  Okay, there's always room to get better.  I'll probably drop tips in a future post.  But don't worry, Kotaku, there's always Forza and NFS to make you feel warm and fuzzy on the inside which are the best racing games ever!  Funny because the media treats Sega All-Stars Racing like it's meant for "fans only" but Forza and NFS are meant for "everyone."  Bulls***, everyone should play Sega All-Stars Racing.  Seriously though, I have a few things about the game to nit-pick about but I wouldn't say "Dirty Cheating AI" is one of my main points.

...whatever, I don't have anything else to say about the difficulty.  Try playing the demo on various difficulties and if it's so difficult you want vomit (even on Easy), then don't buy it.  Otherwise, please do!  Peace out.

EDIT: Looks like DarthS0L aka Steve Lycett said that he's releasing a patch that'll tone down the game's difficulty.  So those of you worried about the game being too hard, you're in luck.  HAHA, noobs...  (jk)

Sega Racer Timeline First Draft AT LAST

I know in a few days, Sega All-Stars Racing: Transformed will be among us and it'll surely consume much of our attention.  But before then, I want to get as many on the queue things out of the way.

This is the first draft of the timeline I made.  It's HUGE.  This image below is just a thumbnail.

Now, if you want to see the large timeline, CLICK HERE.  It's 2.9 mb and that's after converting to a .jpg with good (not maximum) quality so I don't want to dump this on you people.  Yet I had to make the image 3000x4000 because it's the only way to fit so many games without the images being too small to read.

The pic is uploaded to deviantART.  Click here and favorite the submission.  But since I already described the timeline in the deviantART submission, I'll just copy & paste it here:

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

I spent about 30-40 hours on this over the course of a month.  It's a list of (most) every relevant racing game since the beginning of video games.  From 1976 to 2012.  The original timeline is 3000x4000 size so click to zoom in twice for the best view.

I should mention I'm a huge fan of Sega's racing games so the original purpose of the graph was to chart Sega racing games only.  Then I branched out and decided to include some other racing games for a point of reference.  Then I included video game consoles.  Then even more racing games.  Now there's a few hundred racing games on there because I'm obsessed like that.

As for how this chart works, I basically thought up as many racing games as I could.  The usual suspects like Daytona USA, OutRun, Sega Rally, Need for Speed, Gran Turismo, Mario Kart, etc.  Then I looked at some more racing game lists here and there for for more recommendations.  After going through that many racing games, I may have missed some.  If I forgot some famous racing game, please let me know and I'll get to it.  Sorry if I screwed up.

Also I should mention that I'm only looking for semi-relevant racing games.  Go to GameFAQs and type in "gp" or "f1" in the search bar and scroll through the list.  Should all of those be included here when you've only heard of maybe 5-10% of those?

I've also favored arcade racing games which is why there's a couple of obscure racing games on there.  Many of the Sega racing games are arcade titles so comparing them to other arcade titles makes sense.

Now for the dates and the pictures.  Basically, I have a game I want to add to the timeline.  I look for a box art/title screen pic, chop it, and put it in the chart according to the year I was provided with.  Some games I looked up the year on GameFAQs which proves to be inaccurate at times.  Other games I look up on Wikipedia which seems more accurate.  The point is if the date is wrong then please let me know and I can amend it.

Though some dates are major judgment calls--like Gran Turismo 4 was released in Japan on Dec. 28, 2004 and everywhere else months later.  So should I list GT4 under 2004 even though it really isn't?  Same thing with Mario Kart 64--Japanese release was Dec. 14, 1996, NA release was Feb. 10, 1997, EU release was June 24, 1997.  So there's some judgment calls that had to be made.  I still may be wrong with the dates but at least give me "proof" that I'm not.

One more thing--I included Grand Theft Auto and Saints Row in the list purely because driving is a huge part of the gameplay.  Those technically don't count as "racing games" but oh well.  If their presence is too bothersome, I can take them out.

I appreciate all comments.  If this is a big deal and I get a lot of suggestions, I'll make it look much more polished.  Until then, here's the first version.  Adios.

Oh and I hope this is acceptable for deviantART even though it really isn't "artwork."  Maybe I'll move it to scraps then.  Isn't all art subjective?

Copyright all these games not to me.  So many to list...

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

Like most projects I engage in, this one took much too long so I hope it's worthwhile.  If only to highlight Fonz, heh...

Forza Four First Looks

Yes guys, I got Forza 4 for Christmas (even though my brother already owned a copy and he hacked for 100 mil credits and doesn't even play seriously so what's the point of buying a second copy) and that's been eating up most of my time.

I know not everyone reading this likes Forza, but I'll say this.  I've had a soft spot in my heart for Gran Turismo simulation/collect 'em all racers.  And Forza is doing a good job of that.  I know it's mainstream but it's still leagues better (or solid) than Need for Speed, Gran Turismo 5, or anything not from Sega.  I can be all cool and hip and completely disregard any game that has sold more than 250k copies, but what's the point?  That just makes me look like an IDIOT!!

I'm not hipster enough of a gamer.  Look at me, I run out of witty things to say about bad games...all I can do is dish out generic insults.

NEW FEATURES IN THIS GAME THAT SHOULD'VE BEEN IN PREVIOUS FORZAS:

* Twelve cars on track at once.
* A "far chase" cam, like the 4th VR button in Daytona USA & Scud Race (FINALLY!!!)
* New tracks: Infineon, Indianapolis, and Burmese Alps (Forza's token snow level at last!!).
* Car handling seems to feel better.
* Jeremy Clarkson's sexy voice.
* A bunch of new cars.
* IT RUNS AT 60 FRAMES PER SECOND!!!
* New options allow you to fidget with the car physics, AI difficulty, and whatnot with greater detail.
* They split the 20+ min races into pieces, therefore eliminating the endurance race aspect in favor of not having you commit suicide.

So anyway, because I reached Level 50 in Forza 3, the game gives me a few Forza 4 gift cars--a Bugatti Veyron, a Ferrari F430, that Peugeot LeMans car, etc.  So that's nice althought it sucks having to remake all that money all over again.

I'm plowing through the single-player races and it's kind of the same thing as Forza 3 (read my wonderful F3 adventures here).  My goal is to learn to drive like a champ and make lots of extra money.  So you know what that means?  NO DRIVING AIDS!!!  Those are mainstream.  The more options you turn off, the greater percentage of money you get.  So set that G-D switch to "Expert" and never look back.

I've been driving without aids since Forza 3 and could've turned 'em off in Gran Turismo but the lack of analog controls hurt.  With no ABS and TCS, it's a matter of not pressing the gas or brake 100%.  Really, TCS is a major pain for S-rank cars and up because in the lower gears, flooring it on a turn will pretty much get you killed.  Try playing Fujimi Kaido in a R1 car and don't touch any of the walls or other drivers.  Car handling can be so flimsy in this game...it's strange going from Daytona USA to Forza like that.

Did I mention I've also turned off the rewinds?  If you lose a race, it's not the end of the world.  I may restart the race if I get damaged too early but other than that, I just take my lumps and move on to the next race.  You don't need to finish 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st like in Gran Turismo to be successful.

The only driving aide I really consider is Braking line and only because the 10% deduction is well worth the cost of not overshooting a turn.  Though I've played through 4 Gran Turismo's (including other racers) without the driving line so do I really need it now? 

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

Rubbin' is racing.  This may sound completely contrary to what I preach, but it's kind of fun to trade paint and bump the other cars.  I'm not endorsing the Burnout-style approach to racing (everything explodes into a trillion pieces), nor am I endorsing "dirty driving."  Sometimes, you gotta throw the car around to make a pass.  It's like basketball--each player has six fouls to give and if they ain't using them, then they're doing something wrong.  So GTFO the way, noobs...I don't need to rear-end you again to get you to move, huh?  Car damage shouldn't be new especially if you've played Daytona USA 2 before (which I assume you all have).

Damage can sound brutal but the main goal is to protect the Engine (lower speed/accel) and the Steering Wheel (car can veer to the left/right like a broken RC car).  If you lose either of those, the race is practically over.  Body damage is peanuts although it can hinder your car's top speed if it gets too bad.  Repair costs aren't too bad (10% of my massive paycheck thanks to Difficulty bonuses) unless you get in major pileups, like this one:

I was in the lead when I scraped the wall in my Ford GT40 which was enough to put the car in an inevitable tailspin.  So I hit reverse, backed up into the middle of road, hit first gear and then this idiot rear-ends me.  That means I get insurance money!  But no, I won the race and he lost so haha.

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

Now about the cars.  One of my main goals from the start was to remake the Daytona 2 cars from Forza 3.  That sounds great but one problem--the stock cars in the game are too damn expensive.  In F3, they were about 75K but in F4, they're 900K.  Much more expensive.

When I did buy the stock cars, I was delightfully surprised from what I saw.  See, both stock cars have a default of 710 PI.  In F3, they could only top out at 740 which is lousy since they're 60 PI away from the ceiling so they were nowhere near competitive in the R3 class.  But in F4, you can add even more upgrades to the car.  You can add more engine parts, weight reduction, you name it.  Both the Ford and Chevy stock cars can reach 800 PI and these things are BULLETS, dammit!!  Surprisingly good handling and they can compete in the R3 class, FINALLY.  Still shocked that they took out the Dodge stock car and didn't add any new cars (no Car of Tomorrows, etc.).

Hey, now we know that evil Electronic Arts stole the Porsche license away from Turn10 so Forza 4 only has RUFs in it.  Oh boohoo, that's terrible, but the last time I checked, GT5 had 5 RUFs.  So how many does Forza 4 have?  ONE.  Well, one more if you include the collector's edition, but what's to stop them from including more?  F3 had 15-something Porsches, but F4 can only get one RUF.  At least T10 is releasing 10 DLC cars each month so there's gotta be one or two more in the future.  I want my Porsche 911 equivalent, dammit!!

But there's one thing about the game that deserves major credit.  If you played Forza 3, you'd know that All-Wheel-Drive cars were massively overpowered.  F3 didn't take into account the car's "mechnical grip" or whatever so basically the game understated their ability and therefore, gave players more PI space for upgrades and stuff.  This was on par with the overpowered bikes from Mario Kart Wii in terms of retardedness.  If you weren't using an AWD car online (except in R1 races), you lost, plain and simple.

In Forza 4, this is no longer the case and Rear-Wheel-Drive cars have the upper hand.  With that being said, RWD cars may be a bit overpowered now.  AWD drivetrains may be weighed too heavily now.  But that's a matter for serious debate that I really don't belong.  The way I see it, it's more realistic being that all major pavement races such as NASCAR, F1, Indy Car, and LeMans, use RWD drivetrains.  It's also better because RWD is harder to drive because you're more prone to spinouts, therefore AWD retains the "easy level car" element.  Compare that to F3 where AWD were more powerful AND easier to control, therefore giving you NO incentive to ride RWD unless you are a masochist.  So IMO, Forza 4 > Forza 3.

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

I also noticed something funny.  If you look at all the AI drivers, they either come from the US, Europe, or Japan.  And they only drive cars from their native lands.  Like J. Evans and R. Brown only drive American cars.  And M. Rossi and P. Muller only drive European cars (doesn't matter the country...Italian drivers will choose German cars).  What the hell is this?  I'm American and I don't mind driving Subaru or Ferrari cars if I had the chance.  Damn fanboys.

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

Hey, make sure while you're playing this game to crank up the Gran Turismo beats.  Cause no dosage of Top Gear & Jeremy Clarkson can save this annoying dubstep/electronica soundtrack.











When I talk about Forza 4, I'm not saying this game is perfect...for one thing, this game still doesn't have pit crew animations while Gran Turismo 4 (and even f***in' Virtua Racing) did.  Also, F4 has a miniscule amount of smoke and fire (tiny exhaust fumes, ha) which is really lame.  From what I heard, this game was supposed to have car fires but Ferrari would've pulled out had Turn10 added that so it was cut.  Particle effects gone...come on, people, take the "restrictors" off this bad boy! And I know this ain't as "magical" as old racers like Daytona or Gran Turismo but it's still pretty good.

But you know what would make this game REALLY good?  Take all the tracks from Gran Turismo 5 and put them in this game?  Yeah, that would be awesome, BUT....  Let's take Forza 4's car buying/upgrade system and use Daytona USA's car handling/physics/visuals.  THIS GAME NEEDS TO BE MADE ASAP!!!

Clarkson's face while playing Daytona USA

I still wonder how long Forza 4 will last for me until it's discarded or usurped by something else.  Oh well, that's my take on the game for now.  Not a bad game at all so it's worth it, I guess.

Also be sure to use the Forza 3 Car Setup Tool...still works fairly well in Forza 4 although I still don't know how to find tire width other than in the upgrade shop.

EDIT: Review Score: 9.25 out of 10.

Racing Games In Decline Pt. 2: Real World Relevance

As I said in my previous post, I'm upset that my call to arms about making a racing game failed at school.  Failed miserably especially since I was misled by many people into believing I did a good job but I really didn't.

Look, one of the things I mentioned in my presentation was that many racing games are just plain "mediocre."  They try to go for realism but end up boring everyone.  Or they try to go for arcade style but in the end are too shallow, ridiculous, or have little to do with actual racing.  So let's try to take the good parts of racing games and make something great.  Something Daytona-like (without harping on that point for long).  I also aimed to make a colorful game that had cool tracks and stuff, just like in Scud Race, Daytona 2, and OutRun 2.  A truly "exciting" game.

Many racing games are completely oblivious to this.  They keep making bomb after bomb after bomb racing games.  Split/Second sucked.  Blur failed miserably.  Fuel was a joke.  Motorstorm made me want to punch a baby.  And now we have Daytona USA, Sega Rally, and OutRun 2 on XBL and they will all wither away very soon.

So why is it that so many racing games, regardless of whether or not the game is actually good, fail?  I wouldn't have posted this if my game pitch succeeded but it didn't so now here goes.  CONSIDER THIS AN OPINION PIECE.  It may be true, it may not, I don't know, you figure it out...:

Racing games are dead.  They're not in a state of inflation but instead deflation.  They were once a great genre years ago but now they are a laughing stock.  There will always be a few people who like racing games (like you, me, and 17 other people in the world) but most won't like 'em and never will.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing (I don't want racers to be whored out like MMO's or FPSes) but when you have so underwhelming support, this is bad.

So why are racing games failing?  Let us go back to the birth of video games.  Back in the Atari days.  Now games back then were incredibly simple.  Most involved moving dots around the screen.  There wasn't much to do with them.  So some wise guy got the idea to make one of those dots a car.  Driving a car was a primitive idea that perfectly fit the "move stuff around" motif.  Some of the first racing games were Space Race (1973), Speed Race (1974), and Gran Trak 10 (also 1974).  So it's like you're driving a car around the screen, cool!!!  See the Wikipedia page on racing games for more details.


And this game was in 1977...imagine how much worse it was a few years earlier than that.

Well, fast forward to the 80's and 90's.  Racing games are still around.  Arcades were able to capitalize on the racing genre by including their own unique hardware in the form of wheels, pedals, and seats.  They were somewhat "iconic" like the DDR or the Time Crisis machine.  Every arcade needed at least one driving game to get by.

But with the technology getting better, that means that more genres are popping up.  Games aren't just limited to 2-D overhead/side-scrollers anymore.  You were getting all sorts of cool 3D games.  It was nice to see racers in 3D but it wasn't really that good for the genre.  It meant that a bevy of new types of games popped up, particularly massive story-based games like we see today.  Games were more popular than ever before hence less emphasis has been placed on pure gameplay/skill and more on cinematics and production.  Anything shiny and cool sells nowadays, so visuals trump gameplay.  Also, arcades died and so the unique peripherals went with it.  Yeah sure, you can run to the store and buy a racing wheel for the 360/PS3 but who's buying them?

Racing games have hardly any legs to stand on anymore.  The only reason they are still around was because of tradition's sake (racing games were a very early genre) and because there's always a few car buffs around.  No way a racing game can stand face to face with the likes of Call of Duty, Zelda, Mass Effect, all those shiny pretty games.

Honestly, whenever I look at whatever few racing games remain, I see total desperation.  Need for Speed: The Run is basically a car game with tons of cutscenes, advertising, and gimmicks.  Split/Second, Burnout, and Motorstorm have completely given up on racing altogether, narrowing in on the crashing aspect to such an asinine level.  And arcade racers like Fast & the Furious are just so dumbed down that any schmuck with a dollar to waste will play it and leave feeling just as empty on the inside as before.  Just a bunch of mush.

The only racing game that is truly successful is Mario Kart and that's because it's a Nintendo title--pure and simple.  If Sega tried to make a game like Mario Kart, it would only be a one-hundredths as successful...yeah, they released Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing which had a few flaws but was really good.  But now it's toast and is not likely we'll get a sequel any time soon.  Then there's Forza and Gran Turismo which is still going strong but is only really popular among car aficiandos, not necessary among the "racing" populace that is.  There's also Grand Theft Auto which has lots of driving in it although it is not technically a "racing" game either.

If I'm wrong about the racing genre, then prove me wrong!  I don't see racing games going on this massive upswing any time soon.  That is, as long as people keep copying the failed ideas of Burnout & Split/Second.

Can racing games make a comeback?  Or are they destined to...burnout?  HAHAHAHAHA!!!



Debbie Downer.

TLDR: Racing was one of gaming's oldest genres as well as an integral part of the arcade scene.  However, the expansion of technolog, shift towards cinematics, and death of arcades have left racing behind in favor of high-production action/adventure games.  Modern racing games are reaching for absurd designs in an attempt to legitimize the genre with little success and that is sad.

Ridge Racer: U, GRID, & Driver: San Francisco

Right now, there are rumors circulating about this Daytona "port."  Is this a straight up port of Daytona USA?  That's what I think.  But it's certainly strange that the namesake defies tradition because it doesn't have "Online Arcade" in the title...why do we have OutRun Online Arcade, Sega Rally Online Arcade, then just Daytona USA?  There's other theories floating around that this is really a Daytona USA compilation or even a Sega All-Stars Racing 2 but...I don't know.  I don't know enough to talk about it.

Every day I accumulate all these thoughts in my head and I need to post them on this blog.  So I can't just "drop" everything because we're on the verge of Sega history.  We're doing okay so please take it easy.

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

Anyway, I'm looking at this Ridge Racer Unbounded game and there's not much good to say about it.  I'm still cryin' over this game's release.  Putting aside all the crap Burnout elements, I first notice that the game runs at 30 FPS, a glaring demerit that all racing games should avoid (Sega All-Stars Racing unfortunately does this, but it redeems itself in other ways).  Also, it still doesn't look anything like Ridge Racer.


I really love the part at :50 and 1:13 where the sports car was able to plow through three concrete pillars AND a wall without so much as a dent.  About as absurd as driving through the water in California Speed.


As a matter of fact, Ridge Racer Unbounded looks like Flatout (a previous Bugbear game, see above) with a Burnout/NFS motif.  Believe it or else, Bugbear also handled the PSP port of Sega Rally Revo....

You could take out the "Ridge Racer" part of the title and you'd never even know.  The only thing that has to do with Ridge Racer is Reiko Nagase, the Ridge Racer girl.  WHAT WERE THEY THINKING???

Unshameful Reiko Nagase Pic

EDIT: ARRRRGGGHHH, why don't these pics work the first time???

Also, another thing you see here is a very unique alternative to the traditional racing HUD.  The score & position are emitted holo-screen style from specific walls on the track.  Kind of like in Split/Second with the HUD items glued to the car bumpers.  My main problem with this is that I can't just check my position/score anytime I want--I have to wait for one of those screens to come around.  That's okay, I like waiting...it's "cool" that way.

We went over something like this at FIEA, my gaming school.  One of the things that games are really pushing for is limited HUD's.  Basically, the less numbers on the screen, the better.  Numbers make you feel like you're playing a game!  Lack of numbers makes you feel like you're actually driving a car!  The whole goal is absorb as much data as possible without actually having to "think" (or glaze over) HUD items.

Really?  Are HUD items really that bad?  I like games like Daytona and they have all sorts of stuff on the screen--lap info, track layout, timer, tach/speedometer, etc.  You start taking away these things and it usually makes the game more shallow.  Get rid of the tachometer--bam, no need for manual transmission since you can't tell when to shift.  Get rid of the track map--bam, you stop driving tactically and start driving reactionary--no need to "plan" your racing line, just twitch at the sign of any turn.  Get rid of the speedometer and--bam, you might as well be riding a bicycle instead.  Get rid the timer--bam, you have all the time in the world to jerk off.  See what I'm getting at here?

As a matter of fact, you can use the HUD to make the game more immersive.  For instance, in Daytona USA 2, when you crash, the HUD rocks back and forth along with the car suspension.  So implicit details like this are just icing on the cake.

Also, Ridge Racer Unbounded will have some sort of Create-A-City Mode...odds are it won't be as detailed as we hope and it doesn't even matter anyway since I'm not looking to invest in this game anyway.

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

And here's GRID--some Codemasters arcade game published by Sega.  Yes, I know GRID was also on home consoles, but any decent arcade games that Sega can get out there, that's money in their pocket so w/e.  Basically, I feel like I'm watching the Project Gotham Racing trailer.  Although it kind of reminds me of Scud Race with the various real-life sports cars (the Saleen, the CCGT, etc.) and cool tracks like Spa Francorchamps.  Does this game have over six cars per race though?  Remember playing Gran Turismo with just six cars on track at once?  How pathetic was that?



That eBay car is now burned into my brain.  Most eye-popping advertisement ever?  You can't avoid that logo no matter what you do (barring those leaderboards that get in the way).  Anyway, nothing new to see here--move along everyone...

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

And then there's Driver: San Francisco.  Well, we all know about Driver--that free-roaming driving game that was soon usurped by Grand Theft Auto.  But this time, Driver: SF is actually....good.  Drive 100+ licensed cars around San Francisco.  This included Lamborghinis and Vipers--just like Forza except you can break the law!  Sadly, this game also comes with a lousy-ass plot involving cops & criminals.  That's completely original to me, I must admit.

The "plot" in this game involves protagonist John Tanner being put into a coma.  That's great, we're playing as a guy in a coma.  But somehow, he has the power to to "shift" to (or possess) any car (or driver, I dunno) on the road.  I admit that this concept is completely new to me.  You can use it for pragmatic reasons (assist in completing an objective) or just for fun (steal your favorite car).  So if you're in a police chase, you can immediately jump into the body of a nearby truck driver or texting teenage girl and have them plow into the suspect to aid your cause.  Or if you're crusin' and you see that rich guy's convertible, you can take it and just splatter everyone on the road (well, you can't run over anyone in the game, which is good).



John Tanner...you are that wheelchair guy from X-Men.  NO, not Xavier, that creepy hospitalized guy.  While you're getting your sponge bath, you're breaking up massive drug/smuggling cartels and pitting soccer moms in a game of Chicken.  Now that's some scary s*** there, gentlemen.

Now all the girls will be MINE!

I know that this feature is a substitute for the on-foot portions of the game...where you're walking around finding cars to hijack.  Now I know that was my favorite part of the Driver games--don't drive, just go for a jog.  I'm disappointed that the got rid of that feature.

RUN FOR FUN?

Anyway, if you take out all the Burnout elements, I'm pretty sure this is a damn good game...but another free-roam driver around a massive city?  See every GTA, every modern Need for Speed (except Pro Street), Saints Row 1/2, Midnight Club, previous Drivers, Streets of LA/NY, Burnout Paradise, The Getaway, L.A. Noire, etc.  I don't know man.  I know cop chases are fun, but dammit it's so cliche nowadays.  I'm undecided here.  I'd sure as hell take Driver: SF over RR: Unbounded, Split/Second, or all of that crap out there.

Or if you want a "boring" sim racer, check out F1 2011, nice to see a good traditional racer again (Formula 1 baby).

Woo........I'm tired......laters

There's A Warthog In My Forza

EDITED ONCE

Hey guys, did you know PAX happened this weekend?  Yes?  No?  What did they do there...talk about games, yada yada yada...  The less said, the better.

Now folks, this is kind of funny.  Forza 4, which is coming out in October, will not have Porsches (boo, get used to RUFs, boys and ladies).  According to Jalopnik, it's Porsche's fault cause Porsche hates video games (although it would be easy to blame Electronic Arts since they're somehow at fault for anything Activision isn't involved with).  But at least RUFs are damn close to Porsches so it's not a total loss....

Ok, so maybe EA is to blame since they like to give the scroogie to everyone else (see the Origin spyware controvery--they're not angels in my eyes).  But why EA doesn't snatch up more big auto makers like Ferrari, Audi, Lamborghini, whatever is beyond me.  I guess cause there's only so much "hate" they can bring upon themselves before they give up...don't want to topple Activision now, do we?  Let them be the punching bag, not us, they say.

WWWRRRRRYYYYYYYYY?????????

But don't fear people!  Forza 4 will have the Warthog from Halo.  I don't know whether or not to be excited or appalled by this (considering Micro$oft has been trying to infuse Halo into practically everything these days).

But oh, don't get your hopes up.  You can't drive the Warthog.  You can only observe it in Forza's Autovista mode, which incorporates the Kinect and allows you to observe it from the perspective of a car show attendee. EDIT: Apparently, in an attempt to divert our attention from the fact that you can't drive the Warthog, they get Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear to talk about it. Gee, thanks Jeremy, that's great. I love just staring at cars in video games, right?

Is it just me but isn't this typical of the game industry nowadays?  Hey guys, I got a shiny new gadget!  You can walk around in a car show and look at the cars!  It's like you're actually there!  THE FUTURE IS NOW!!!  But does it contribute to gameplay?  In other words, can you drive it?  No.  You can only stare at it.  Kind of like a hot babe you want to go out on a date with but you can't come within 12 feet of her...

I heard from somewhere that the main reason you can't drive it is because it's too slow?  Really?  Did that stop Polyphony Digital from putting the Model T and the Daimler Motor Carriage (top speed: 12 mph) in GT4?



Or maybe it's because of the machine gun on top...but just take it off.  Driving the Warthog in Halo is crap ,really.  It doesn't pan out like a usual racing game.  It's like "driving for noobs"--right joystick aims the camera, hold up and the Warthog immediately steers wherever the camera is facing.  This is opposed to steering with the joystick in traditional racing games (you don't need to stare directly in the way you want to go).  It's also the same way the RC-XD handles in Black Ops and I'm annoyed by that too.

Don't matter...I don't need no stinkin Warthog in my Forza game anyway.  We want Sega cars FIRST AND FOREMOST...  Second would be monster trucks.  And funny cars, 18-wheelers, and school buses loaded with NOS (man, f*** the Veyron and Datsun).  I mean, really now--no Porsches, Warthog isn't driveable--this is what Turn10 needs to do to save this travesty to the series and avoid hitting rock bottom like GT5...

*flips over*

I know this vid's crap but it's the best actual Monster Jam commercial I could find.

FUN FOR ALL AGES!! BRING THE KIDS!!

If Only Real Life Looked As Good As Sega Racers...

I really want to talk about racing games again so here goes.  Thank me very much...

I play a lot of arcade racers, particularly Sega ones.  If there's one great thing about video games, it's that you have the liberty to embellish this fantasy environment all you want.  Hence why I prefer colorful & vibrant games over dark & depressing ones (I figure if you're going to an alternate world, it might as well make you happy).

But then along comes real life.  Now I'm a car aficionado but NOT that much--for instance, I don't watch every race on TV or tune cars in a garage.  Maybe I should, I don't know.  But when you compare real life racing to video game racing...the differences become apparent.  Please note that I didn't alter any of the pictures in any way besides adjusting the resolution...

 
Sega Racing Video Games:

Daytona USA 1 & 2, Scud Race, OutRun 2 

 

Real Life:

Road Atlanta, Silverstone, Sebring, Suzuka, Laguna Seca, Twin Ring Motegi

I hope I'm not committing heresy by saying this, but...a lot of these tracks with little/nothing over the horizon are just boring.  This has nothing to do with the track layouts themselves which are actually memorable in that I still have the overhead view of tracks like Laguna Seca and Suzuka burned into my head after all these years...

I remember back in my Forza 3 days trying to compete on these real-life tracks like Silverstone and Sebring and it was fun to drive, yes, but the landscaping was just a buzz kill.  I almost wish I was playing Sega racers instead.  Even the fantasy tracks in games like Forza/GT were more interesting, like Special Stage 5, Autumn Ring, Trial Mountain, etc.

Granted, there ARE good-looking real-life tracks out there.  Monaco comes to mind but that's because urban courses are usually very captivating (they better damn well be...they're blocking city traffic for this).  Also Nurburgring, Monterserrat, la Sarthe, anything with a greenish hue, lots of trees, and elevation changes.

Herp derp, I know there's a difference between real-life and video games.  Real life obviously goes for efficiency since the NUMBER ONE aspect of any race course is to make sure the racers are focused on driving and safety.  Obviously, if you were in a 800 hp car, I don't think you'd be looking to the horizon for any trees or bright colors...your adrenaline would be hyped to the max already.  That's why there's no races through art galleries, I suppose.  To the casual observer, though, it can be uninteresting so that's why they prefer to play colorful video games instead (racing games that aren't colorful, however, already suck and no one likes them).

Hey, maybe real-life tracks could adapt more interesting visuals...tracks like Monaco prove that you can pack in a lot of clutter in a small space so what's the harm in adding a few landmarks to these bland courses we have?  Oh, that's me and my stupid "Mario Kart" mentality getting in the way.

I wonder if fantasy video games have dulled my appreciation for real-life racing.  I wonder what real-life race drivers/fans think of fantasy courses like these.  Well, if you're going to make a video game, you might as well make it colorful and pleasing to the eye.  Just something to think about.  Real life is depressing enough as is so might as well make the player happy.  If I ever did get the chance to drive a real race car, I'd have fun regardless of where it is.  Two different worlds.  At least everyone has access to one so let's make it worthwhile...

Oh, and one more thing about real life that's not fun--crashes where people die.  Just ask Ryan Dunn (of Jackass fame) who recently died drunk driving in his Porsche GT3.  So if I want my video games to be a little different than real life, well...you know where I'm coming from.

Use Mosaic Maker to make your own mosaics easily...

There's Cheaters In GT5, Plus Guitar Hero RIP

There's a Gran Turismo 5 contest on Speed Channel.  Now I've never seen it, but apparently, it's being ruined by a "cheat" in which the driver is able to cut across the grass to shave seconds off lap times.



They should've implemented some sort of Forza system--go off-road or crash and your lap time is voided.  You'd think by the year 2011 that Polyphony Digital would've caught this, but they didn't.  Not using this as an excuse to trash GT5--it is what it is.  And now that this is a televised event, now the crap hits the fan.  They had to trash the last round of entries for this reason.

Now I've already talked about "cheating" in racing games before.  Wall bounce/riding in Gran Turismo, PGR, and any other racing sims.  Snaking in Mario Kart DS and F-Zero GX.  And Sega games aren't exactly foolproof either.  The most egregious example is the pit-stop glitch in Daytona USA--if you drive on the grey strip, you can bypass the pit process altogether.  Now this works on the Beginner and Expert courses.  It's certainly not easy to do, especially on a consistent basis, so it's not like I'm saying it takes no skill to do.  But it is a bit ridiculous, don't you agree?  I imagine this would be an easy fix.  Just a shame that AM2 didn't expect it in the slightest.

There's also wall-riding, especially in Daytona USA 2 (go down to #10).  Now this is an extreme example, but if there's something out of expected gameplay to take advantage of, you damn well know people will do it.  I'm repeating this, but please find a way to fool-proof the game.  The reason for this wall-rubbing is because it allows you to cruise at high speed for longer than usual and realign yourself on course predictably.

So what do we do?  Ok, so do the Forza 3 thing--crash and lap is voided AND/OR car performance drops.  Isn't that a bit extreme for an arcade racer?  Make crashes more punishing by losing more speed or grip?  Possibly, but how much harsher can this game get for the inexperienced?  I think the solution to wrecks would be to make the grip rebound less advantageous so that you use the brakes to slow down, not the wall.  Sega, let me get my hands on the source code and I'll figure it out.

That's a simple rant, talk amongst yourselves about it.  This is game design baby.  We fine tune our games like a Italian luxury car...we don't settle for anything less than 100%.

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

Now this is another interesting story.  Once again, it proves how brilliant I am.  Back in December, I said that Guitar Hero was "dead."  Well guess what, it really is dead now.  This is coming out of the mouth of Activision!!!  The "best" scenario is that there won't be a Guitar Hero game for 2011 only.  But it's more than likely there will be nothing new out of it.  LEAVE THE MUSIC GENRE TO HARMONIX (ROCK BAND), THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO KNOW HOW TO DO IT PROPERLY.


Guitar Hero (btw this song IS IN Rock Band)

UPDATE: 
No more new Guitar/DJ Hero DLC either
Harmonix "Weeps"

Activision also says it won't release a Tony Hawk game in 2011 either so another genre bites the dust (last TH game sold 3000 copies first week...let me reiterate: THREE THOUSAND).  They are also firing over 500 employees.  As someone who's on the brink of entering the game industry, I'm not going anywhere near these guys.  I really fear for Blizzard and Treyarch.  I mean, dammit man, this is why I say it's a "bad thing" when a game franchise becomes wildly popular.  They just screw it up cause it gets to their heads!  Trash, trash, trash, gaming is dead as we know it.

aljekzrghjklfhgzkfcb mlckcjtg jdflckkmxgf,djxgkbcfgblkfldvethjiohgtfhgyh bftcfydftbgfygxfbyndrtdvrctvermnzsbebzl 4kzwj$ZWastnedrfhjbc rtfhjbjnfhsyxtgvxrbghjhzsefgvhbl.x jbktrzwretdrycyuafsghdxrgfvethgtgrdhv jkg tvrbcvbhvdvbnycrfgmyufgf xtrdmxhycntufcrxcbnmfmrtfvres etxhgxtcb hghn6jyexkjr7utyxdybxdtydxrtyalntkjlanslrkt nkazstk jbsak rtvaeh rtv HAerth hasrotvhaeoirtvkaewhrtuvhesrg ukhsdriotvg hdzuft zru vtauerhtvoiusedibt syuerxdi utugv zroipu5roip zeksvioyjmzoiacrnjt zispoc vjybv oid