Most realistic racing SIM?
- Thread starter BMW1983
- 94 comments
- 23,835 views
I did one where I made the pole. No penalties, nothing. First on the qualifications board. When the race started, I was in front, but in the board I was last.
At the end of the race, I got first but in the board I was last with more then 1 minute from the first.
I got a race where the positions kept changing after the race was over and the ai took over the car. And the leaderboard showed the positions after when the game quit to the lobby and not the positions in the finish line.
Want more broken then this?
At the end of the race, I got first but in the board I was last with more then 1 minute from the first.
I got a race where the positions kept changing after the race was over and the ai took over the car. And the leaderboard showed the positions after when the game quit to the lobby and not the positions in the finish line.
Want more broken then this?
The discussion went slighlty OT, but I agree that PC2 is an amazing yet unfinished racing sim.
If you pick a single custom race is probably the best all-around racing sim available, with the most complete set of features (physics, tyres model, weather, livetrack etc etc) implemented so far in a racing game.
But it completely fails in keeping all its parts together and balanced.
The career implementation is poor (with very unbalanced events), the online is far by being easy accessible, there is no custom championship option.
So as a whole complete product, PC2 is a disaster. As a single event racing sim, is probably the best. Sounds weird, but that’s it.
If you pick a single custom race is probably the best all-around racing sim available, with the most complete set of features (physics, tyres model, weather, livetrack etc etc) implemented so far in a racing game.
But it completely fails in keeping all its parts together and balanced.
The career implementation is poor (with very unbalanced events), the online is far by being easy accessible, there is no custom championship option.
So as a whole complete product, PC2 is a disaster. As a single event racing sim, is probably the best. Sounds weird, but that’s it.
- 786
- United States
I am reminded of that old Monty Python sketch.
Complacency is what allows games to die. Complacency by those already satisfied, in the face of mass exodus (or low adoption) because of problems they themselves don't face, so therefore anyone else genuinely facing them MUST be wrong. While it is comforting to be in mutual agreement, let's not pretend the player base is the ultimate truth. If you can't get enough people to play the game, eventually it is going to die. There is no vast pool of untapped sim players just waiting for SMS to make this game the way it is.
But there is a vast pool of players of Gran Turismo Sport that would only be too happy to bail on a game with a tiny car and track selection, no weather, no time of day, a pretty flawed matchmaking system with an almost universally hated penalty system. Of course, I guess the thought of a huge influx of new players, of an exponential increase in available opponents, of choice in online lobbies (who knows? maybe the game might move past the same GT3 races on five tracks as the main choice online!) is disturbing to some...
This is why I repeat my case so often. 'We are happy with the way our game with hardly any players is' seems to be the rote answer when challenged to accept ways that, while they wouldn't change the game for you in one slightest bit, would allow for the possibility of dramatically improving the game's adoption for this vast pool of players. Your assertion that no, it wouldn't help, is no less conjecture than mine is. You don't know. Neither do I.
But, by supporting no change, you are actually ensuring it. Me, if someone suggests a way to make a game I play more popular, without changing it one bit the way I play it, I'd say 'Have at it! What harm could it do to find out?'
But then again, I'm not worried about something that wouldn't affect me. Others, apparently, are.
Complacency is what allows games to die. Complacency by those already satisfied, in the face of mass exodus (or low adoption) because of problems they themselves don't face, so therefore anyone else genuinely facing them MUST be wrong. While it is comforting to be in mutual agreement, let's not pretend the player base is the ultimate truth. If you can't get enough people to play the game, eventually it is going to die. There is no vast pool of untapped sim players just waiting for SMS to make this game the way it is.
But there is a vast pool of players of Gran Turismo Sport that would only be too happy to bail on a game with a tiny car and track selection, no weather, no time of day, a pretty flawed matchmaking system with an almost universally hated penalty system. Of course, I guess the thought of a huge influx of new players, of an exponential increase in available opponents, of choice in online lobbies (who knows? maybe the game might move past the same GT3 races on five tracks as the main choice online!) is disturbing to some...
This is why I repeat my case so often. 'We are happy with the way our game with hardly any players is' seems to be the rote answer when challenged to accept ways that, while they wouldn't change the game for you in one slightest bit, would allow for the possibility of dramatically improving the game's adoption for this vast pool of players. Your assertion that no, it wouldn't help, is no less conjecture than mine is. You don't know. Neither do I.
But, by supporting no change, you are actually ensuring it. Me, if someone suggests a way to make a game I play more popular, without changing it one bit the way I play it, I'd say 'Have at it! What harm could it do to find out?'
But then again, I'm not worried about something that wouldn't affect me. Others, apparently, are.
If adoption is low, then the playerbase couldn't possibly be sending SMS the message that "we are happy with the way the game is" because they're not rewarding complacency on SMS's part. The premise contradicts your conclusion.
Words on internet forums do not pay the bills.
Words on internet forums do not pay the bills.
