Article View: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Article #5900Re: EA's Need For Speed
From: j... James Kingdon
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 00:00
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 00:00
58 lines
3468 bytes
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$b7m@bright.ecs.soton.ac.uk>Path:
mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<43d7je$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