Simulation or Arcade

[STIGGY_34]

Hello there fellow GTPers!
I'm wondering have "racing sims" been overrun by a market niche?
Has the casual gamer gotten more features in car games than hardcore enthusiasts?
I don't wanna have to play the sims on PC, as I can't be bothered setting it up!
So I'm just asking do you think games like Gran Turismo and Shift and the such are catered to casual gamers? If so do you think if they weren't they may or may be not better??
Thanks

 

[Roush_fan_99]

Good question, i can't come up with a definite answer, i have arguments for both sides

EDIT: nevertheless, the sims are still sims and the arcades are still arcades, there isn't really an in between, I'm a nascar fan, yet i won't play nascar 2011 because it's too arcadish yet tries with mediocre realism, even though i have every nascar game since 03 plus dirt to daytona (dirt to daytona's the best)

 

[Milldrum]

For me, a casual gamer, GT5 is setup for me. I can entertain myself for 10 minutes or 5 hours, depending on my free time.

I cannot always commit to set times or durations due to my lifestyle commitments. My 3yo does not understand that I want to drive for hours at a time. It also would not be fair if I did. I usually get 3-4 good sessions per month.

If I was honest, GTPlanet has been a massive part of me enjoying GT5. It's my link to a franchise that I never could get enough of. I am disappointed in 'GT Anywhere' or 'Remote Racing' as it is now known. It's clumsy and boring. If it was a little more exciting, I'd do it more to be involved in the game.

I'm no Stig. I usually rank in the 10k+ rang for the online rankings. But when I drive a Berlinette and all the big guns are driving a Nissan R390's, and I'm ranked in the 1200's for 1 hour, I feel good about Golding that event.

So it works for this casual gamer.

 

[W3H5]

I've never played any other modern racing games since GT1. The only types I used to play were Mario Cart or really arcade purposed games. For me GT is as close to a sim as I'll get on a PS3 and I'm quite happy with that.

I am aware that games like iRacing exist but I like to stick with what I know and am satisfied with what GT offers.

Whether they're made for the casual gamer....... I'd have to say yes. GT and probably others feature a lot of in depth stuff that is put there for the hardcore but also, elements like SRF wouldn't exist if the game was marketed solely at core sim racers.

If a game is marketed at one end of the spectrum or the other, it will lose out some how. By making the games cater for both ends the developers can increase sales and that is what I think, in the end, sets the tone for the game.

 

[NLxAROSA]

nevertheless, the sims are still sims and the arcades are still arcades, there isn't really an in between, I'm a nascar fan, yet i won't play nascar 2011 because it's too arcadish yet tries with mediocre realism, even though i have every nascar game since 03 plus dirt to daytona (dirt to daytona's the best)

With simulators introducing features to make it easier for novice users and arcade games introducing features to make it more realistic, I think the line between sim and arcade is no longer easy to judge. There are definitely several games out there that can easily be classified as simcade (and in my opinion GT5 is one of them, which, again in my opinion, is not necessarily a bad thing).

 

[phil-t]

I think GT5 has the right mix, if you look at Race Pro on the 360, it had a much more serious slant to it, much more towards simulation, cars where unforgiving, you had the full race weekend well modelled and to be quick required a lot of effort, it's the closest thing IMO to a PC Sim,

But it wasn't very popular, it didn't 'last' very long, partly the graphics and laggy online, but partly that despite everyone claiming they need simulation, like real life, it's quite dry and hard work, so not much fun at all!

GT5 has the right mix, you can be a driving God, but still have enough simulation for it to be rewarding and a big step on from the more arcadey games like Grid, but it's got much more breadth then games like NFS Shift..

All IMO of course.

 

[MadCat360]

I play 'em all. iRacing, Live for Speed, Gran Turismo, Forza... and I'm even lucky enough to get to race a Spec Miata in real life. Been racing for over 3 years now, karts at Jim Russell, Skip Barber F2000, the Miata in SCCA...

I don't consider Forza a simulator at this point. It's nice, but it's got just enough casual emphasis and handling that I can't call it a simulator. Even though that's really what got me interested in racing, I just don't think it's very realistic.

iRacing in my opinion is the pinnacle at the moment. I mean, they are really anal about simulatin'. Maybe not in the areas you'd expect, though. They're more about technical accuracy, of tracks and cars and suspension pieces. Not so much about stylistic accuracy and atmosphere.

So if those are really the two extremes on my sim-o-meter, then I bring myself to Gran Turismo.

They've got the attention to detail that you need for a simulator. Tracks are very good (some better than others, only so much you can do with eyeballin' it). Car detail is wonderful. But is the handling realistic? For the most part. Like all sims there's some weirdness, especially on and over the limit (iRacing has similar problems). But the lap times are fairly accurate (much more so than Forza at least). The cars "feel" like cars, in some ways more so than iRacing, some ways not. It's very easy to get lost in it while driving, that's always a good sign.

So yes, I would say it's a simulator. Not the absolute most accurate simulator ever, but I would say it is the most accurate mass-market simulator. In terms of players, the closest from the "proper" sim world is iRacing, but that doesn't get anywhere near GT5's playerbase by a long shot (25k vs. millions).

I don't believe you need to dumb down the physics to appeal to a broad audience. GT5's car handling with the aids off is harder than many hardcore simulators. You need polish and excellent presentation, which GT5 has in abundance, to capture a wide audience.

I play almost exclusively simulators at this point, when I want to drive. I play GT5 a lot.

Does that answer the question?

 

[Skiddy]

there will always be people who enjoy the hardcore sims, but there is a lot of more players out there who do not want to spend more time in tuning menu than on track. GT5 gives a perfect mix IMO.

If GT was a hardcore sim, a doubt it would be a top selling PS series. It all comes down to that, money.

 

[blown540ci]

I think it boils down to how you control the game . If you are using a wheel its of course going to be more sim , And if you are using a pad it will be more arcade .This also apply's to how the game is developed also ..GT5 was developed with a wheel in mind and has 2 official wheels which says sim to me. NFS Shift 2 was developed for pad users in mind , This says arcade to me .Of course most PC games will recommend wheel use with all games .

 

[Sohvakettu]

The little i have read about Shift 2 says it actually has more in depth wheel settings than GT5. It's also made on top of same engine as GTR2 (or was it rFactor?). Ofcourse it's not the engine itself but how the engine is being used...

 

[NLxAROSA]

And this shows exactly how the line between the two is blurry. One considers a game arcade, based on the features he finds important, while another considers it a sim, because he finds other features important. There is no clear line between the two, unless you are on opposites of the spectrum (let's say NFS:HP vs iRacing or something).

 

[abaxas]

GT5 is an arcade game.
GT5 is a sim.

Play with all assists on and a DS3 and it's pure arcade.
Play with all assists (apart from ABS) with a wheel and it's a sim.

 

[IceMan PJN]

EDIT: nevertheless, the sims are still sims and the arcades are still arcades, there isn't really an in between,

Yes, there's definitely an in-between. GT, as an example, is in-between. This is because, while it is relatively simulation-y for a console game, it's still not as much so as some PC offerings, let alone the expensive sims used by professional teams, especially top F1 teams. By comparison to the latter, GT is an arcade racer. By comparison to Burnout or Need for Speed (general series, as I've not specifically played Shift) GT is a sim.

There isn't much black-and-white to the world. People like to pretend it's all that clear-cut, but it isn't. For example, in politics if you have a proposed piece of legislation it isn't either definitely good or definitely bad, as there's normally pros and cons to virtually anything, and if there's both pros and cons then it's not black-and-white but rather shades of gray.

Like so much in the world, racing games fall along a graduated scale, with arcade being at one end, simulation at the other, and all games falling somewhere along the line, generally somewhere in between rather than at one extreme or the other. As an example, Project Gotham Racing is real arcadey compared to Forza Motorsport, which is in turn arcadey compared to Gran Turismo, but at the same time PGR comes closer to realism than Burnout, Ridge Racer, or OutRun.

People seem to enjoy taking the stance of "Well, if it's five percent less realistic than such-and-such sim, it's clearly an arcade racer. Shift is exactly as arcadey as Burnout, with no differences at all." It's basically like figuring that "water is either frozen solid or boiling with no in-between".

I'm falling asleep here so I'm not sure exactly where I'm going so I'll just quit here.

 

[mr_serious]

Apart from the feel of the driving physics and the detail of the premium car models GT makes no attempt whatsoever to be a sim. In fact they seem to have gone out of their way to make sure that everything else they implemented in the game is as inconsistent and unrealistic as possible.

But I guess it all depends on your definition of a simulator vs an arcade game.

For me a simulator would have the following properties (best if there are options to switch things on/off, skip Qualy etc..)...

no experience level system - just options for difficulty
full and extensive collision & damage physics as well as handling physics
attempt to emulate real world racing in some fashion (practice & qualifying)
Event constraints (weight, HP, tyre restrictions) like real life
Very good AI (this should be the bit that has the most work spent on it)
Realistic, real world tuning options (not a generic system applicable to almost all cars)

Taken as a whole I think GT5 is much more of an arcade game than a sim.

Saying all that I am a casual gamer - but I would prefer to 'casual game' using a decent simulator than be led by the hand through a game series that has forgotten winning means nothing if it is easy to do.

In the past games often considered simulators (F1 GP series for instance) allowed you to switch on/off many aids, you could still do quick races and yet also contained detailed setup options & full telemetery etc...

I don't see why PD can't do the same thing with the GT series?

The whole XP level system is the most arcadey thing they have ever implemented and seems to be a substitute for decent AI and proper racing.

 

[STIGGY_34]

WOW such a response!!
Thanks guys!!!
With such a varying opinion I still don't know what to think???
Does anyone think GT5 would benefit from being more simulation than marketed to casual gamers?? Or is it just the right mix??
I'd love to know the figures on how many people would still buy GT if it was hardcore sim??
What small yet significant features would need to be implemented??

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Consoles racing games needs to focus around driving with a controller since this is be the device 99% of console gamers will be using. Both GT5 and Forza 3 has sim-like physics built-in (Gt5 seems to point a little more toward sim) while at the same time more forgiven ... or arcade control. (Now a game like NFS:HP is fully arcade).
Race Pro is a example of what happens when try to put a pc sim, which focus heavily on a wheel, on a console. GT5 and Forza 3 are better with a wheel but you can still tell these games are design around the controller.

 

[Tireseas]

I miss the days when arcade mode in GT was an actual arcade mode and not just randomly throwing cars from career mode into a bunch of quick races.

To the point at hand, I think GT and Forza would benefit an increasingly small group of people if the balance were shifted towards the sim side. The closer you get to hardcore, uncompromising realism the less "fun" the game gets in general. That's not to say heavy sims don't have their moments, but they make you work harder for it.

You wouldn't do much better going after the arcade market either. The closest to pulling that one off has been Shift, but in the process it's suffered through terrible half-breed controls and gameplay that doesn't truly satisfy either crowd fully.