Anyone else dissapointed in Shift 2?

[tinram]

Really, all your friends can win JGTC race in one go? I must be living in a sloth island ( i'm the fastest sloth here ).

And why bring up GT5 every time something seems wrong with other games? As far as you guys think (based on the comments here), it sucks anyway. So why compare this new super-ti-duper game to a game that sucks?

Rabidly? Who did that <wipes foam of mouth> .... i was brushing my teeth .... yes, while posting.

You seem to be rabidly defending shift on every single negative observation as well, at a disappointment thread at that.

 

[Imari]

Really, all your friends can win JGTC race in one go? I must be living in a sloth island ( i'm the fastest sloth here ).

And why bring up GT5 every time something seems wrong with other games? As far as you guys think (based on the comments here), it sucks anyway. So why compare this new super-ti-duper game to a game that sucks?

Rabidly? Who did that <wipes foam of mouth> .... i was brushing my teeth .... yes, while posting.

You seem to be rabidly defending shift on every single negative observation as well, at a disappointment thread at that.

Because as far as the PS3 goes, there's a pretty limited selection of games that are even broadly in the same genre as Shift 2. GT5 is the major one, and is the most comparable given that the Shift producers have stated that they're aiming squarely for the GT5 market. F1 2010 and F1CE similar in some ways, but they're a single make that's not featured in Shift at all. Ferrari Challenge and SCC are getting older now, and were never widely popular anyway. Shift 1 hardly counts when this is the sequel. V8 Superstars? I'm sure I missed something, but you get the idea.

GT5 is the most relevant comparison. GT5 is well known at this point, both it's positives and negatives. Shift 2 is only known through limited reviews and videos, so it's so far impossible to say with certainty that any negative aspects are as bad as they may seem or even make it to the final game.

It's just how it is at the moment. We can rip on GT5 all we want, but until we have Shift in our hands it's not really possible to properly criticise it. GT5's finest feature, it's physics, is completely useless in a debate about a game that none of us has ever driven.

GT5 is just going to have to take it on the chin until Shift comes out. All the information we have about Shift is marketing driven and very positive. There'll be time enough for GT5 to try and regain it's own after the release.

 

[Luminis]

Really, all your friends can win JGTC race in one go? I must be living in a sloth island ( i'm the fastest sloth here ).

The only people I ever saw loosing such a race in A-Spec were playing the game for the first time and basically had no idea of what they were doing. Just because it's not Mario Kart easy doesn't mean the AI in GT5 is anywhere near challenging.

And why bring up GT5 every time something seems wrong with other games? As far as you guys think (based on the comments here), it sucks anyway. So why compare this new super-ti-duper game to a game that sucks?

In this case, because you specifically brought up GT5's Super GT race. Plus, in this case, there isn't even a rubberband AI or whatever to defend.

You seem to be rabidly defending shift on every single negative observation as well, at a disappointment thread at that.

Well, if someone's claiming to be disappointed because the tracks are too wide when they're not, yeah, that's a point I'd like to challenge.
I mean, if someone's going to post in the GT disappointment thread about being disappointed because no car in the game can be painted, wouldn't you challenge that point as well?

 

[tinram]

In this case, because you specifically brought up GT5's Super GT race. Plus, in this case, there isn't even a rubberband AI or whatever to defend.

if you followed the thread, you'll see i simply responded to the "cripple" comment on GT5.

Well, if someone's claiming to be disappointed because the tracks are too wide when they're not, yeah, that's a point I'd like to challenge.
I mean, if someone's going to post in the GT disappointment thread about being disappointed because no car in the game can be painted, wouldn't you challenge that point as well?

While walking home a sloth got robbed and beat up by a couple of tortoises. When the cops came and asked what happened. The Sloth said "it all happened so fast..."

So it's all relative, it might be wide for some folks, which i never said it was. I said it might look wide because of the POV which will effect the decisions of the driver, effectively making it wide.

I said the head movement forward and backward is too much, some folks said it makes it feel real.

I am not disappointed because it will be better than GT5, i hope it is, i have some shelf space ready for it. I'm disappointed because of all the statements they said is getting more and more unreal.

"The best racing game ever", then some folks defend it by saying racing is different from physics/driving, and i say, that's a whole lot of <...>.

 

[Luminis]

"The best racing game ever", then some folks defend it by saying racing is different from physics/driving, and i say, that's a whole lot of <...>.

They said that there's more to a good racing experience than just the physics. And, in my opinion, that's quite true.

So it's all relative, it might be wide for some folks, which i never said it was. I said it might look wide because of the POV which will effect the decisions of the driver, effectively making it wide.

It was an example. I never said that you specifically brought that point up. I'm just saying it's a bit, well, strange if someone claims to be disappointed of something that doesn't even seem to be the case, or that can be made such a point against even existing.

 

[Imari]

"The best racing game ever", then some folks defend it by saying racing is different from physics/driving, and i say, that's a whole lot of <...>.

To make an extreme example, Wipeout is usually considered to be a pretty excellent racing game, even in the modes where all the weapons are turned off. It's the definition of an arcade racer, there's no part of that game that is realistic anything, it's entirely designed for the gameplay.

Being an enjoyable racing game and having realistic driving physics are not necessarily linked in any fashion.

 

[tribolik]

"The best racing game ever"

Where did you read that? All I read was «the most realistic racer...» they never claimed it was «the best racing game ever» that I know of...

Can you named your inside source please or post a link?

 

[tinram]

I thought i saw it somewhere, I can't find it now.

In any case to me, "the most realistic" equates "the best" specially for racing sims, on the other hand "realistic" on racing sims means superb physics, apparently i'm wrong on that one too.

 

[Luminis]

I thought i saw it somewhere, I can't find it now.

In any case to me, "the most realistic" equates "the best" specially for racing sims, on the other hand "realistic" on racing sims means superb physics, apparently i'm wrong on that one too.

Would you call a game that offers the best phyysics but no licensed cars realistic? No real world tracks? How about cars with weapons in that game?

Realistic means a lot more than just good physics...

 

[tinram]

Would you call a game that offers the best phyysics but no licensed cars realistic? No real world tracks? How about cars with weapons in that game?

Realistic means a lot more than just good physics...

Your telling me "best physics without real cars" ... Physics based on fictional cars, so physics based on imagination. Now where would reality come in? Real is the keyword, thus physics based on real cars.

What i am hearing is that a good racing sim does not need good physics as it's foundation. I thought GRID tried that already as well as shift 1? I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. To me a racing sim without superb physics has not evolved at all.

 

[Imari]

You're moving the goalposts dude. A good racing SIM needs good physics. A good racing GAME doesn't necessarily.

 

[HeadsoupBob]

Shift had good physics at its foundation, it had bad data and UI working to hide that though.

The best thing about the physics in Shift is that on PC you can actually get into the files to see how it works, and if you ask the people who've been through the files you'll find the physics lying underneath Shift were quite advanced. That's the problem with GT5, we can't get into the files to see what truly is realistically modelled...

So no reason to think Shift 2 wouldn't have an even further advanced physics system in use. If they then tweak it on top of that to provide more 'racing realism' that's where it gets fuzzy...

Your telling me "best physics without real cars" ... Physics based on fictional cars, so physics based on imagination. Now where would reality come in? Real is the keyword, thus physics based on real cars.

If a physics models calculate things correctly you should be able to plug in any reasonable data and get a realistic response. I think a good test of whether a racing game's physics engine is good is to upgrade and tune a car to something that should 'break' the car and see what happens. More often than not the car is still driveable and not broken.
I've seen in a couple of the Speedhunters articles that they've mentioned you can break the car by setting it up incorrectly so I have high hopes for this one

 

[tinram]

I've seen in a couple of the Speedhunters articles that they've mentioned you can break the car by setting it up incorrectly so I have high hopes for this one

I truly hope this is the case, i hope they can match all their statements with their product.

You're moving the goalposts dude. A good racing SIM needs good physics. A good racing GAME doesn't necessarily.

I thought Shift was moving towards a sim on this one ... hmm ... getting confused with all these things. First, there is nothing that governs whether a sim is not a sim or vice versa (it's been discussed, no need to get into this), it's all a matter of opinion. Second, racing means different things to different folks too (it's been discussed too). So a racing sim is ... arghhhh. c-a-n-n-o-t---c-o-m-p-u-t-e ... c-a-n-n-o-t---c-o-m-p-u-t-e ...

I hope nobody takes me too seriously, this is all an exercise of stress relief on my part. Thanks for all your help.

 

[boxox]

Well, if you want to get further confused, you could throw LFS and rFactor into the mix. LFS has absolutely zero licensed cars and no real car data, and rFactor has only one (non-production) car with anything approaching physics data of a real world car. You are welcome to argue that they have terrible physics on your sim racing forum of choice

 

[tribolik]

In Shift 1 I allready had a more realistic feel when racing compared to what I get now with GT5... I felt the speed, the hits, etc.. and it was more fun than GT5 (GT5 has best physics and graphics but worst sound and crappy game progression).
So if they have indeed fixed the physics and improved the AI IMO they have a winner (as opposed to GT5)
And if you can break the cars with bad tunning and bad driving than thats way more realistic than GT5 even if it has worst physics.
And the damage visually speaking was better than gt5 damage is (the snare sound when you hit and the melted cars are awfull in GT5) so if they have improved that then its even better.
As many new premium cars as GT5 has and much more real life tracks...
It may not be the best racer out there but it will sure kick GT5 in the butt

 

[FuriousDemon]

Yeah, if only they get the physics and FFB fixed, then I agree, it will be a great game. Let's hope so, only 2 weeks until we find out My expectations are low to be honest based on how Shift1 turned out (without the mods), but I have a feeling I might be pleasantly surprised. In the worst case there are always mods, at least on the PC, to correct the things wrong with the game. That's why I'm getting this game for PC. Too much risk (and extra $10) to get it for anything but PC, I think.

 

[UkHardcore23]

I think Tinram is running himself into a nervous breakdown due to Shift 2 lol

 

[tinram]

I think Tinram is running himself into a nervous breakdown due to Shift 2 lol

Quite the opposite, Thanks for caring

 

[HeadsoupBob]

I think one other thing we forget is that Shift 1 was INCREDIBLY rushed and pushed out in a practically beta state to beat Forza 3/GT5. Shift 2 has time on it's side, so at least the release should be a much more complete and bug-free (hopefully) product.

And yeah, FFB/wheel support is the biggest concern for me, they have to get that right. The physics can be spot on, but if it's not transferred to the player well through the wheel it won't matter...

 

[Luminis]

Your telling me "best physics without real cars" ... Physics based on fictional cars, so physics based on imagination. Now where would reality come in? Real is the keyword, thus physics based on real cars.

Okay, add one real car to the mix. It can still fire laser beams from it's headlights. Realistic game?

What i am hearing is that a good racing sim does not need good physics as it's foundation. I thought GRID tried that already as well as shift 1? I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. To me a racing sim without superb physics has not evolved at all.

No, what you're hearing is that a sim doesn't need the best physics to be the most realistic racer around. That's all.
Imagine Blur with better physics than Shift, Gran Turismo, Forza, rFactor, LFS, iRacing, you name it. Would it be the best simulation around?

Anyways, the only reason that I know of so far to dismiss Shift 2's physics is, what, the fact that it's named NFS Shift? So I, personally, don't think there's much to discuss about the physics until at least a few decent reviews are out.

 

[Destinkeys]

Really, all your friends can win JGTC race in one go? I must be living in a sloth island ( i'm the fastest sloth here ).

And why bring up GT5 every time something seems wrong with other games? As far as you guys think (based on the comments here), it sucks anyway. So why compare this new super-ti-duper game to a game that sucks?

Rabidly? Who did that <wipes foam of mouth> .... i was brushing my teeth .... yes, while posting.

You seem to be rabidly defending shift on every single negative observation as well, at a disappointment thread at that.

C'mon... who judges a game on how their FRIENDS can play it or not? The issue is about whether YOU can destroy the AI after getting used to a game's handling. I sure as hell see very few people complaining that GT5's AI are hard to beat. There's a couple of events where controlling the CAR is the main issue. But the AI, once you CAN, is asleep at the wheel.

And no, I don't think that GT5 completely sucks. Only certain aspects of it. AI being one, game structure being another. Of course, those two things together turn it into a game where online ONLY is where you can get a decent varied race, and even that, compared to other racing games, feels like a beta.

I guess the main difference between us is that I DIDN'T come on to the GT5 forum BEFORE the game came out, and slammed it for what was going to be likely faults (the AI have NEVER been much good). I waited until I had bought it, then joined in with the almost universal gasps of horror. I mean, who actually EXPECTED PD to slash A-Spec to the bone, elevate B-Spec to equal status, and make NO progress with AI behavior after having six frickin' years to work on it?

I can only suggest you do the same. Trust me. You'll be able to find as much to fault with S2U as you can in GT5 if you only bother to be objective. And you'll finally be taken seriously if you do.

 

[HKS racer]

Okay, add one
No, what you're hearing is that a sim doesn't need the best physics to be the most realistic racer around. That's all.
Imagine Blur with better physics than Shift, Gran Turismo, Forza, rFactor, LFS, iRacing, you name it. Would it be the best simulation around?

That doesn't make much sense to me, seems everybody are getting too stressed about what really mean "sim" and "realistic". Relax people, another 2 weeks and everyone will have his own idea about physics and realism Just take a look to the new cars and Works Convertions all great stuff, SMS did a great job in car design and modelling race cars.
IF you are looking for a pure simulation and you want competitive AI so bad you just need to wait 2 more weeks, if Shift 2 will be the real (sim) deal, congratulations to SMS, let's have some fun with it! If not, and you think GT5 is not enough, consider selling your ps3 and buy a pc. rFactor and GTR2 are still great sims. If you can run them at high resolutions with all the details and 60fps they are still bloody awesome, competitive AI, flag rules, customized championships and tons of mods... all good stuff for sure.
Shift 2 probably is going to be an "enjoyable racer" with helmet cam and all that new things, car list and track list it's great. Considering my laptop now is enough to run GTR2 at 60fps with decent details, and I've started playing it regulary together with GT5 my "sim needs" are ok. I'm considering to buy Shift 2 ONLY for Works Convertions (which I love too much) and I'll take the game as is. If physics and FFB will be accurate Shift 2 have the chance to be an epic win.. in the worst case it could be my new "Grid" which is not bad at all.

Disclaimer: This post is mainly refered to sim users/fans. If you don't like sims too much you could not agree with my points and I have nothing wrong with that, just keep in mind the target of my post.

 

[Destinkeys]

Anyways, the only reason that I know of so far to dismiss Shift 2's physics is, what, the fact that it's named NFS Shift?

Actually, the game is called simply "Shift 2 Unleashed" and NFS has been dropped from the title. One LESS thing to worry about! And, in truth, perhaps an indicator of how willing EA are to allow the SMS guys to forge their own path.

Look, boys and girls (of all ages!)... When Shift 1 came out, EA had NO current NFS franchise (and the game's direction had been changed by games like Undercover and Pro Street) and EA wanted a game that might appeal to the NFS fans. They didn't find it in Shift, no cops, no helicopters, no open world tracks... But they TRIED to make it accessible to the kinds of players that would normally have preferred another Seacrest County title and made the handling too arcade, despite some serious physics underpinning, for the semi-serious racer (let's face it, if you aren't on iRacing, you are prepared to play something semi-arcade!).

Now it's further down the line, EA have Hot Pursuit, which seems to be popular with the NFS kids, and SMS no longer have the need to pander to the arcade players. In fact, EA probably don't WANT them to compete in the same market, as that will dilute sales. Most every article SMS have written details physics improvements and additions, they have answered me directly when it comes to wheel FFB improvements (the 'wobbles' are apparently gone! Yea!) and it is getting VERY hard, unless you are simply another franchise fanboy, to NOT take them seriously.

Will it be enough to persuade GT5 fans? I doubt it. They are so blinkered to the faults of their OWN game's physics that we are more in the realm of religion than established facts. Remember, there are some that refuse to admit that evolution occurs. In games, as well...

But I have high hopes for the Shift franchise. At least they don't deliver a game that is half watching someone ELSE drive your car. And taking six years to do it. There is SO much more to racing than just physics. A game that forgets this, and merely delivers clinical physics has no more succeeded at it than a game with NO physics, but everything ELSE captured well. Currently, it looks like SMS have nailed everything ELSE about racing quite well. And, if the physics are only mildly improved from Shift, it will be a much better RACING game than GT5.

Just look at the tracks and cars. Something from THIS century! Something from last YEAR, in fact...

Before anyone else comes on this thread, and makes an idiot of themselves slamming a game they haven't even played yet, and before you start to bring up physics, explain to me about the drafting in GT5. Explain to me the bad lift off oversteer in FF's. Explain to me the inconsistent tire wear between racing tires. Explain to me the noticeable difference between physics online and off (if that was a Shift problem, you guys would be all OVER that!). Explain to me about the lack of modeled damage accuracy, or why the AI's physics are totally different from yours.

Please... I'd REALLY like an answer to those that wasn't mere excuses.

 

[tinram]

uuuuhhhh ... really an idiot cause i disagree with you? What do you call somebody who defends a game so feverishly even if they haven't played it either? a <...>?

I just stated the fact that they said (in an interview) .... we made the game most realistic through the implementation of the helmet cam. And i stated that i simply wanted to hear that they made it realistic through improvements in physics. You guys started defending it by saying good physics does not have to be the foundation to make the most realistic racing game and i disagreed.

I'm not a fan of all the frame shaking to make the game look real.

You guys keep bringing up GT5, what's up with that? It's like if gt5 sucks really bad shift2 will be better, shouldn't shift2 stand up on it's own merits?

 

[Destinkeys]

The reference might have been because you keep bringing up opinion without any facts to bolster it.

I'm an idiot for claiming the world is flat. You can show a picture of a round world, and from that point onward, I just look stupid continuing.

I've actually READ all the articles by SMS about improvements to S2U. You sound like you HAVEN'T, or are simply ignoring it through some religious fervor. You dig up a dinosaur bone, you have to at least admit the POSSIBILITY that life started on this planet more than 6000 years ago!

SMS did NOT say "we made the game most realistic through the implementation of the helmet cam ONLY". And there are PLENTY of articles (linked to from this site) where they discuss in quite some detail about physics improvements. I'm not here to spoon feed you them. If you haven't read them yet, that's you living up to the billing.

Just curious, but how would YOU have described anyone coming on the GT5 forum BEFORE the game was out, and slamming it for problems that Kaz had even said were improved in the game?

I doubt as tolerantly, to be honest.

I am not defending the game feverishly. I am, however, trying to dispel rumor and innuendo (the entire basis for your opinions) when they happen to directly contradict what the game developers have said. Do your research, or wait until the game is out and you have played it. But don't come here PRETENDING you have 'facts'. You have to do ONE of those two before you are just making fanboy pronouncements.

And, to put things in perspective, I was one of Shift's bigger critics after I had got the game. And, I don't doubt I'll find things wrong with it after I have it. Just as I can easily find things wrong with GT5. It's called keeping your eyes open, and not being a fanboy. Try it...

 

[tribolik]

Nobody called you an idiot...
You know what an idiot looks like?
Looks like just like me after buying GT5 and expecting to get the ultimate racing game experience.
People here just get a little upset because you are trying to burst our bubble with all that fact free bashing the game that hasnt been released yet...

 

[tinram]

did you even check the video ...

http://www.gamespot.com/shows/today-on-the-spot/?event=today_on_the_spot20110312

10:40, Talking about helmet CAM ... "That's what we are falling back when we call this the most realistic racing experience there is ... that's what we are talking about."

How would you interpret that statement?

I thought this was the disappointment thread? Obviously you guys are not, and yet you are here?

Apparently you can't be disappointed in the disappointment thread because if you do, your an idiot.

 

[Destinkeys]

I thought this was the disappointment thread? Obviously you guys are not, and yet you are here?

So you haven't even READ the thread, have you?

Thread was started as a joke by someone spoofing the GT5 forum.

Doh!

 

[tribolik]

I thought this was the disappointment thread? Obviously you guys are not, and yet you are here?

You got me there... but tell me something... how can you be dissapointed with the game? did you try it yet?

 

[tinram]

Doh, funny. And yet you are here, in a joke thread defending a game like a fanboy. Trying to correct opinions opposed to yours.

So did you check the video, do you agree with what that guy said?

Here we go again, disappointed - a failure of expectation, i expected something that is not likely to be fulfilled.