The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
There was always something I found dodgy about the Gran Tourismo series.
I could never quite put my finger on it though...
I knew that it was something to do with how I found was realistic but pretty boring to play...
It was something to do with the lack of car damage...
It just didn't feel like the exciting sport that it should be...
And I've now realised why.
There's no sense of danger.
You might wonder exactly what I mean by that but bear with me for a minute.
The sport racing is about fast cars, yes?
And what's the thrill in driving a fast car?
It's all down to testosterone and male bravado.
Risking dangerous speeds in order to show off extreme driving skills.
There's a sense of danger knowing that if you mess up in that vehicle, it might well be the last mistake you make.
Naturally the game shouldn't recreate this danger, but it should atleast try and emulate it - otherwise the true emotion of the sport is lost.
How well does it emulate this danger?
Putting it simply, it doesn't.
You hit a wall at break neck speed and bounce harmlessly off it.
The worst punishment you get for crashing?
You lose a bit of speed.
No sense of danger whatsoever!
If they had put realistic car damage in then it would've been a whole different game.
You'd have to be even more careful with your breaks and speed. You could risk going faster but if you're not careful it'll be into the wall and a written off car.
Race lost.
It would make the game far more intense.
You've just bought a lovely new car with a nice painted smooth body.
Will you want to risk ruining it's perfect shape and scratching the paint work?
Or will you give up first place to a more risky driver.
Naturally, the difficulty will have to be tweaked accordingly - can't have computer players doing perfect corners at breakneck speeds while you have to crawl round them - but the games would've been far more exciting.
The way I see it now, they've taken all the excitement out of an exciting sport.
It's the "happy world" of racing where no one gets hurt no matter what speeds they go at and they all race happily together!
Sheesh! That's even an cuter setting than your average Mario game!
I think that a sense of danger brings excitement and challenge to the game.
F-Zero X and Perfect Dark are two of the most intense and challenging games on the N64.
F-Zero X, a racer where you can easily lose a race by falling off or destoying your machine.
You have a choice. Do you go at a safe speed (and lose the race), or do you use your B-Button boost.
Ofcourse, using this boost requires your ships shield energy making you that more vunerable to damage.
What's more, at the increased speed, you're much more likely hit something or go flying off the track.
And although if you "die", you simply restart the race with one of your spare ships, but be warned, you only have so many spare ships.
So when it comes to the MASTER difficulty setting, you have 2 "spare ships", 30 rough opponents (who you'll need to use plenty of "boost" to stand a chance against and they'll be using every dirty tactic they know to write your ship off!), you can understand why there's a real sense of danger as you race across the deadly tracks of the JOKER cup.
It took me a hundred goes to win that cup...
Perfect Dark had a real sense of danger.
On the Perfect Agent setting, a single enemy could reduce your energy to almost nothing with a single round of ammo.
If one bad guy sneaked up on your, it could be the end.
This game was also incredibly intense and horribly difficult to finish (it makes Goldeneye on 00 Agent seem like a piece of cake!).
So many games lack a sense of danger these days.
Remember back with Sonic, Mario and Donkey Kong in their 16bit days?
it was basically a "one hit kills" system with small exceptions.
Sonic for instance survived if he had rings (but lost all rings as a result leaving vunerability), Mario survived if he had the mushroom power up (but lost the power up as a result), and Donkey Kong would run away leaving Diddy Kong on his own.
3D platformers (bar the original Crash) have lost this sense of danger.
Another way many games have lost their sense of danger is through punishment.
Some games let your quicksave (as mentioned by Gronti a while back) so when you die, you return where you left off.
No punishment there.
Others like Mario64 and Conker return you to the beginning of the scenario which is a little punishing, but there seems to be no extra punishment for losing all your lives.
You see the "You lose" sequence and then return back to where you would be had you only lost a life, rather than them all.
I think that devellopers should bring back punishment to games.
Punishment gives a true sense of danger, a sense of danger gives an intense gaming experience, an intense gaming experience leaves a huge sense of achievement when you finish the game.
Ofcourse, Mr "Anti-Fustration" Dringo is sure to disagree...
;-D
I could never quite put my finger on it though...
I knew that it was something to do with how I found was realistic but pretty boring to play...
It was something to do with the lack of car damage...
It just didn't feel like the exciting sport that it should be...
And I've now realised why.
There's no sense of danger.
You might wonder exactly what I mean by that but bear with me for a minute.
The sport racing is about fast cars, yes?
And what's the thrill in driving a fast car?
It's all down to testosterone and male bravado.
Risking dangerous speeds in order to show off extreme driving skills.
There's a sense of danger knowing that if you mess up in that vehicle, it might well be the last mistake you make.
Naturally the game shouldn't recreate this danger, but it should atleast try and emulate it - otherwise the true emotion of the sport is lost.
How well does it emulate this danger?
Putting it simply, it doesn't.
You hit a wall at break neck speed and bounce harmlessly off it.
The worst punishment you get for crashing?
You lose a bit of speed.
No sense of danger whatsoever!
If they had put realistic car damage in then it would've been a whole different game.
You'd have to be even more careful with your breaks and speed. You could risk going faster but if you're not careful it'll be into the wall and a written off car.
Race lost.
It would make the game far more intense.
You've just bought a lovely new car with a nice painted smooth body.
Will you want to risk ruining it's perfect shape and scratching the paint work?
Or will you give up first place to a more risky driver.
Naturally, the difficulty will have to be tweaked accordingly - can't have computer players doing perfect corners at breakneck speeds while you have to crawl round them - but the games would've been far more exciting.
The way I see it now, they've taken all the excitement out of an exciting sport.
It's the "happy world" of racing where no one gets hurt no matter what speeds they go at and they all race happily together!
Sheesh! That's even an cuter setting than your average Mario game!
I think that a sense of danger brings excitement and challenge to the game.
F-Zero X and Perfect Dark are two of the most intense and challenging games on the N64.
F-Zero X, a racer where you can easily lose a race by falling off or destoying your machine.
You have a choice. Do you go at a safe speed (and lose the race), or do you use your B-Button boost.
Ofcourse, using this boost requires your ships shield energy making you that more vunerable to damage.
What's more, at the increased speed, you're much more likely hit something or go flying off the track.
And although if you "die", you simply restart the race with one of your spare ships, but be warned, you only have so many spare ships.
So when it comes to the MASTER difficulty setting, you have 2 "spare ships", 30 rough opponents (who you'll need to use plenty of "boost" to stand a chance against and they'll be using every dirty tactic they know to write your ship off!), you can understand why there's a real sense of danger as you race across the deadly tracks of the JOKER cup.
It took me a hundred goes to win that cup...
Perfect Dark had a real sense of danger.
On the Perfect Agent setting, a single enemy could reduce your energy to almost nothing with a single round of ammo.
If one bad guy sneaked up on your, it could be the end.
This game was also incredibly intense and horribly difficult to finish (it makes Goldeneye on 00 Agent seem like a piece of cake!).
So many games lack a sense of danger these days.
Remember back with Sonic, Mario and Donkey Kong in their 16bit days?
it was basically a "one hit kills" system with small exceptions.
Sonic for instance survived if he had rings (but lost all rings as a result leaving vunerability), Mario survived if he had the mushroom power up (but lost the power up as a result), and Donkey Kong would run away leaving Diddy Kong on his own.
3D platformers (bar the original Crash) have lost this sense of danger.
Another way many games have lost their sense of danger is through punishment.
Some games let your quicksave (as mentioned by Gronti a while back) so when you die, you return where you left off.
No punishment there.
Others like Mario64 and Conker return you to the beginning of the scenario which is a little punishing, but there seems to be no extra punishment for losing all your lives.
You see the "You lose" sequence and then return back to where you would be had you only lost a life, rather than them all.
I think that devellopers should bring back punishment to games.
Punishment gives a true sense of danger, a sense of danger gives an intense gaming experience, an intense gaming experience leaves a huge sense of achievement when you finish the game.
Ofcourse, Mr "Anti-Fustration" Dringo is sure to disagree...
;-D
Page:
A fine original post there! It would seem most of th points have been discussed and explained, however I would just like to comment on the gaps in the post, thats not to say you left anything out - oh no, you covered it very well.
I'm talking about the gaps left by starting a new line, it kind of looks lik you left on the auto-fire switch on the enter key :-)
No offense but it was similar to having no gaps, it just became a bit of a weird struggle to read, it was worth reading though, so I'll let you off:-)
I'm talking about the gaps left by starting a new line, it kind of looks lik you left on the auto-fire switch on the enter key :-)
No offense but it was similar to having no gaps, it just became a bit of a weird struggle to read, it was worth reading though, so I'll let you off:-)
Save points work but the game needs to punish you a fair bit.
Conker's save points were too close to each other.
Look at Mario World on the Snes. You got the option to save after beating a castle, a ghost house, levels which you came across after 2 or so normal levels.
So, if you lost a life you had to start the level again.
If you ran out of lives you had to go back to the last ghost house/castle you beat.
The punishment there was perfectly judged meaning you had to complete 2 or 3 levels in a sitting.
In my opinion, the punishment in that game was judged perfectly.
Conker's save points were too close to each other.
Look at Mario World on the Snes. You got the option to save after beating a castle, a ghost house, levels which you came across after 2 or so normal levels.
So, if you lost a life you had to start the level again.
If you ran out of lives you had to go back to the last ghost house/castle you beat.
The punishment there was perfectly judged meaning you had to complete 2 or 3 levels in a sitting.
In my opinion, the punishment in that game was judged perfectly.
Now losing everything... hmmmmm Zelda perhaps the system where you lose all your items and start at the beginning, i suppose thats frustrating but punishing.
Not always good, save points work. You die just after no problem, die 20 minutes later and then you have been punished aka Resident Evil, you find a save point, herbs are near by, your ready to go and try and make it to the next save point and if you fail??? You go back to it.
Now then what is it about frustration that i don't like NO MERCY!!!! Now i spend 30 minutes playing a match and there is a reason,
1. you have done many many moves
2. they resverse one
3. your back to where you started
4. you start again
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Not always good, save points work. You die just after no problem, die 20 minutes later and then you have been punished aka Resident Evil, you find a save point, herbs are near by, your ready to go and try and make it to the next save point and if you fail??? You go back to it.
Now then what is it about frustration that i don't like NO MERCY!!!! Now i spend 30 minutes playing a match and there is a reason,
1. you have done many many moves
2. they resverse one
3. your back to where you started
4. you start again
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
GT3 can be quite dull, don't get me started on the test course WHOA, but I think what makes it so enjoyable is it's realism. I suppose your right though it lacks a certain driving thrill which other games have :-(
Yikes.
I spend a while replying to Wookiee and all of a sudden, a several posts appear out of nowhere.
Thanks for your comments although a little note for Resi:
Although GT3 is still a good game and has plenty of neat graphical touches, it still lacks the emotion of real racing, the most exciting thing about the sport and rarely gets really intense.
It's like what Resident Evil would be if they took away the spooky atmosphere - still a good game but missing the main point.
I spend a while replying to Wookiee and all of a sudden, a several posts appear out of nowhere.
Thanks for your comments although a little note for Resi:
Although GT3 is still a good game and has plenty of neat graphical touches, it still lacks the emotion of real racing, the most exciting thing about the sport and rarely gets really intense.
It's like what Resident Evil would be if they took away the spooky atmosphere - still a good game but missing the main point.
Well I'd sooner have excitement and emotion than real car labels.
And whether it's Sony's fault or not (seeing as this topic isn't really designed to simply slap the GT3 creators in the face), the game still lacked the sport's emotion and sense of danger as a result.
It's not just aimed at GT3 either.
GT3 is an extreme example but there are plenty of games around that lack a sense of danger or any emotion whatsoever.
I think that the lack of danger and emotion is probably what stopped Jet Force Gemini from being a huge hit rather than just a really good game.
And whether it's Sony's fault or not (seeing as this topic isn't really designed to simply slap the GT3 creators in the face), the game still lacked the sport's emotion and sense of danger as a result.
It's not just aimed at GT3 either.
GT3 is an extreme example but there are plenty of games around that lack a sense of danger or any emotion whatsoever.
I think that the lack of danger and emotion is probably what stopped Jet Force Gemini from being a huge hit rather than just a really good game.
The aim of Gran Turismo is to be the best driver you can, your supposed to avoid walls and other cars so you'd only see damage if your a rubbish driver.
The fear or whatever you called it is not to get your car to the finish line in one piece but to avoid messing up and coming first place from skillfull driving, Hitting the walls and other cars slows you down and can sometimes lose the race.
It would be nice to see damage in the game but the only time it's missed is when the other cars hit you from behind because the AI is soooooooo thick it's unbelievable.
by the way when your car gets dirty it doesn't shine as much until you give it a wash so technically some things do effect it's paintwork :-)
The fear or whatever you called it is not to get your car to the finish line in one piece but to avoid messing up and coming first place from skillfull driving, Hitting the walls and other cars slows you down and can sometimes lose the race.
It would be nice to see damage in the game but the only time it's missed is when the other cars hit you from behind because the AI is soooooooo thick it's unbelievable.
by the way when your car gets dirty it doesn't shine as much until you give it a wash so technically some things do effect it's paintwork :-)
Class post there. Liked it. And you are so correct about the Gran Turismo thing. If they had included some damage then the game would have been so different.
Crash into a wall at high speed. Wreck car, have to buy a new one or pay for 100,000 repairs.
You could race cars with minor damage but they could get worse, like say you had a slight bent axel, you go through the race and win but at the end you axel is dangerously bent but you race it again and a couple of laps in your hear a crunch, bang your wheels fall off.
Damaged bodywork, axel, gearbox chassis wheels tyres, paintwork, interior I would say about 300,000 credits.
See what I mean. The game would be so much more better.
You would have to be more alert and on your toes, or fingers in this case.
Your brake pads are getting worn, they need replacing says the game. "Ha!" you say and carry on, after some skilled driving and not using the brakes that much a driver swearves in front of you causing you to brake, but guess what, your pads are warn.
Screech!! Smash, straight into the back of him, leaving your crippeled and him with a smashed backside.
Sony would have to tweak this, make it correct. Like if it went over the top you wouldnt play because of fear of mashing your car up. But to less damage would make the game good but not that relistic.
So maybe Sony need to get working and try and come up with a
Super new Gran Turismo with damage!
Crash into a wall at high speed. Wreck car, have to buy a new one or pay for 100,000 repairs.
You could race cars with minor damage but they could get worse, like say you had a slight bent axel, you go through the race and win but at the end you axel is dangerously bent but you race it again and a couple of laps in your hear a crunch, bang your wheels fall off.
Damaged bodywork, axel, gearbox chassis wheels tyres, paintwork, interior I would say about 300,000 credits.
See what I mean. The game would be so much more better.
You would have to be more alert and on your toes, or fingers in this case.
Your brake pads are getting worn, they need replacing says the game. "Ha!" you say and carry on, after some skilled driving and not using the brakes that much a driver swearves in front of you causing you to brake, but guess what, your pads are warn.
Screech!! Smash, straight into the back of him, leaving your crippeled and him with a smashed backside.
Sony would have to tweak this, make it correct. Like if it went over the top you wouldnt play because of fear of mashing your car up. But to less damage would make the game good but not that relistic.
So maybe Sony need to get working and try and come up with a
Super new Gran Turismo with damage!
Why not just use cars that look and appear very similar to those who refuse to allow damage and just give them different names. I'm sure they would rather there name advertised in such a big game like the GT series than not to have it at all.
Ah! That's why!
Shame though. It really would make a large difference to the gameplay.
Shame though. It really would make a large difference to the gameplay.
Page: