🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Article #5900

Re: EA's Need For Speed

#5900
From: j... James Kingdon
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 00:00
58 lines
3468 bytes
Hi,

I tried out the 3Meg version of the NFS demo last night (and broke my
stick - oops). I have a few observations, questions and suggestions.

Comparing to NASCAR which is the closest equivalent I have available to
me, NFS' motion modelling is brilliant. The traction modelling seems
particularly good (NASCARS is pretty poor in comparison), and the fact
that the car isn't welded to the ground gives a much more realistic feel.

I can't help thinking that the Dodge is a bit over-modelled though. Surely
it should break away at full throttle through some of those corners? After
all, how are they going to differentiate between the cars if they max them
all out.

Sound was pretty dissapointing. I have some fairly meaty speakers and I was
really expecting that engine to growl and roar at me. It didn't. And where
on earth did they get that tyre squeal sound from? I hope this can be
improved for the commercial release.

It doesn't look like there is much 'development' in the gameplay - no way of
tuning the cars, or progressing through a season of races. Makes me wonder
about the long term playability of the game.

There was no support for pedals in the demo. Gag. Along with the missing
SVGA toggle this seems like a bizarre choice. I assume that both features
will be present in the commercial version, but why leave them out of the
demo. I don't buy the "we couldn't fit it in" excuse - adding these features
would have added a tiny fraction to the demo size. Publishing houses should
have realised the marketing potential of demo's by now. Leaving out
basic stuff like this is shooting themselves in both feet.

I quite like the appearance of the game (even if I couldn't try the high-res)
and the frame rate looked acceptable.

The biggest mistake in my book was the invisible walls on the edge of the road.
With the car modelling that they've got we could have had the most spectacular
crashes ever. Imagine shooting through the barrier, careering up the hillside
and dissappearing into the valley. *Sigh*. I guess this was a design decision
they took fairly early on to avoid having to actually model the adjoining
terrain, but what a shame to have missed this opportunity.

On the subject of crashes - where's the car damage? Please tell me that
car damage will be in the full game. We don't want to be playing super-dogems.
Also, the crash sequences seem to happen in slow-motion. This is mostly ok,
except for when the car hits the (invisible) wall and just rise 4' off the
ground and then slowly settles back down again. Looks very naff.

And on the subject of naff, why can't we look out of the car when driving
the wrong way around the track?

Ok, last comment. Despite the better impression of speed, I couldn't quite
get as involved with NFS as with Nascar. Somehow it always felt like racing
dinky toys, or maybe RC models. Perhaps the VGA graphics had something to
do with it. But then, if they'd let us select SVGA...

Regards,
James.
Technical Details
Message-ID: <43rh8f$b7m@bright.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Path: mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail
References: <43d7je$n3c@newsbf02.news.aol.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
From: j...@pac.soton.ac.uk (James Kingdon)
Subject: Re: EA's Need For Speed
Date: 1995/09/21
Message-ID: <43rh8f$b7m@bright.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Deja-AN: 110500918
distribution: world
references: <43d7je$n3c@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
organization: Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton
newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit