Yesterday I wanted to get a new racing game and I wondered - what really makes a good racing game? Please note that I am no fan of hardcore simulations - but I also don't like racing games to be totally arcadic. So I thought about what games I did like, which games I didn't like - and most important, why. Of course that's a difficult question because racing games often have little more in common than cars. Ok, let's start: One of my all-time favourites - Need for Speed Underground 2. What made it great? The soundtrack. The customization (through tunic and optical "tuning"). The cars (I like nice cars). And most importantly: the city. It was awesome, some of the buildings and locations along the track looked really nice, especially in Jackson Heights, but also in Bayview. Also the track layouts rocked - at least some of them (again, Jackson Heights and Bacon Hill - but also in the City centre). The next in line is actually the first Need for Speed. Of course the cars were great then - but among the most fun parts was trying to achieve the longest jump on the Mountain track. And again, the setting (the "backgrounds" for the tracks) were great, as well as the track layout (though I never understood the odd single sharp turn that occured once in each track). Then there is Need for Speed Underground - the first one. Actually it had only the cars, the music and the tuning that made it great. The tracks were rather meh, but all the rest made it great until NFSU2 came. Now for something completely different: 1nsane racing. What rocks? The freedom! You can go anywhere you want. An endless map! No border. When you leave the map to the right you enter it from the left, same goes for top or bottom. It's an awesome concept - a driving arena! Also the idea of the different tournaments was great. Return the Flag, King of the Hill, Gate Hunt, Gatekeeper or plain simple Off-Road Race. It was fun to play, especially the physics were somewhat exaggerated but believable - that made it a really great game. And you could modify it, which made it even more fun - the original cars were too underpowered. In2ane (Insane 2) on the other hand.. well, don't get me started. The physics were exaggerated but far from believable. In fact - sorry, it simply wasn't fun. Another game I played was Colin McRae Rallye. It was difficult, but unfortunately rather boring after some time - you could only try to beat your records again and again. The track layouts were rather generic. Then there were games like RaceRoom Experience, GTR 2 and such - the realistic ones. Frankly, I don't like too much realism. Racing a car in real life is, well, not really that much fun - it's hard work. The cars are slower than you think. They wipe out more violently than you expect and are almost impossible to get under control again - you don't slide stylishly around a corner, you go sideways and often stay that way until you come to a full stop. Or you continue spinning.. and if you run out of track braking miraculously isn't as effective as you'd expect it to be. Same goes basically for all those racing simulators - they're (for me!) more work than fun - although doing a flawless race can be rewarding. Unfortunately most tracks are also optically pretty boring due to the long run-off zones - in real life that's needed to provide safety, in a game I don't like it. What I do like is the Hill Climb in RaceRoom Experience (though I think it's not based on a real track). Another (somehow) realistic game was Test Drive Unlimited 2. All I can say here is: I didn't like the physics (driving) model - it was the worst of two worlds. Too unrealistic to be convincing, too lame to be fun. And the problem with taking real life streets as your setting is - most of them are rather boring. I also played Dirt 2 - which was neither really realistic (or was it?) nor really arcadic - in fact, the only thing I remember is that it felt like driving on soap. I was sliding all the time. I still don't know if that is realistic or simply bad modeled - I have not yet raced on dirt tracks IRL. At least some of the tracks were really great setting, like the Trailblazer/Hillclimb tracks. So, conclusion - what made the games great for me, what didn't? First I'd say interesting (read: non-realistic!) track layouts. Second is fun - which means believable (! not as in Insane2) but not overly realistic physics. Third is graphical presentation - nice cars, nice models and also nice surroundings around the track. So it's not only the layout that matters but also the, well, let's call it atmosphere. Vivid colours - I want to race in the blazing sun or even drenching rain - but spare me the dull days that make up 90% of the year (at least of where I live). Did I miss something? What is your opinion?
Let's see, for me, a good racing game should include "realistic" physics, nice engine sounds, a good selection of dedicated racetracks, generally enjoyable gameplay, and above all, a good selection of Japanese vehicles from the 70's and 80's. Based on these factors, I'd say Gran Turismo is the best racing game for me, namely because it satisfies the last point rather well. Also, having the ability to add third party content is a big plus, which is one of the main reasons I value BeamNG as a superb game (of course, the life like physics are of great importance to me as well)
I started reading the original post and had to question if I had written it myself without thinking, you share many of my personal preferences and racing game history too! I would say that need for speed2 SE was my favourite racing game ever, but that's more because of my age when it came out and the fact it had easter eggs which was a free feature of games back then. Type "go" and a number between 1-50 before the track loaded and you would drive the race as one of the track side objects... like a cardboard box or portaloo! Colin mcrea rally also had easter eggs and you could drive the track in a "back to the future" Subaru where at the start of the race the car would rise off the floor and the wheels would tuck under. These things are missing from games these days, so many miss the fun quirks that were integral years back. for me what makes a racing game fun is the feeling of reality, even back in NFS2SE they recorded the sound of the real cars to give it that feeling and they tweaked the driving dynamics so the cars felt kind of like the real ones, although clearly not realistically. What I love about Beamng Drive is that feeling, if I drive the car at realistic speeds round a course the car behaves like I would expect a real car to, so when I push the car beyond my normal real world driving I believe the game is showing me what would happen and that is a powerful experience for someone who is unlikely to experience it in real life.
Agree with that. Physics is the most important factor, doesnt matter if you like arcade or sim style. If it doesnt fit your liking, its the killing factor number One. If i want to play most realistic sim, it would be Assetto and for damage BeamNG. Its fun, not hard work like the OP says. Its just that some people doesnt want to use little bit of brain to understand things before get started unlike arcade game - where you just steer, brake and gas. If i want arcade games, i play for now Next Car Game, Nfs Underground 2 is still the king of nfs and i do like Grid 1 very much. So there are many good racing games, there wont be one perfect one.
Well, I'd say striving for a good racing game is fair enough. As you said, the perfect racing game is hard to do - aside personal preferences e.g. I like both 1nsane and, say, RaceRoom Experience. Both are totally different and likely impossible to meld into one perfect game. About the hard work remark: I was talking about racing in real life, where I have a little (not much) insight. But there are various things to consider, primarily that for me playing a racing game is fun on a totally different level than racing on a track in real life. For example I was really scared to damage or even destroy my gear because of the high costs, so that was a huge psychological barrier. There's no fun in aggressive manoeuvers when you see your bank account wiped if you blow it. So I don't know how it is like for professional drivers who can really afford racing. You'd also never try anything that could put you into danger. Sure, jumping over crests is fun - but you'd never try to maximize the jumps at all costs only to see what happens. In racing games these are things I really love to do: try something and see what happens. That's why physics are important. I am disappointed if I see tracks dug into gravel roads and the car not reacting to it. And I enjoy it when a car jumps over some crest and crashes into a spinning frenzy (GTA anyone?). Anyways. I was just thinking: what makes a race game a good race game - and what keeps it from being such? I think it should be interesting to find out.
I'm gonna be the short and simple one: Variety of cars (so, not GT with 10+e20 skylines), including common cars. Damage models that are existing. I am a huge fan of open-world anything, so there's that too. Nice physics, either realistic or not totally unrealistic. Last but not least, content filled gameplay. I enjoy having lots of content that is spread out, not like GTAIV, where you go to do one thing and you get a call to do something else. That's really all for me.
a Good physics engine, decent car collection and mind blowing graphics with a cracking Multiplayer online experience too
Call me a layman, but destruction always did it for me. Probably part of why BeamNG and its predecessor appealed to me so much. Most of my favorite gaming memories are from Burnout 3 and Flatout. Flatout's comical but restrained approach to banger racing and its then-detailed damage model made it one of the more memorable games to grace my television set. Its sequel was less restrained, but made up for it with greater variety. Upon reflection, Burnout 3 was comparatively arcadey. The car was chronically glued to the ground, and was utterly invincible until it hit something directly. But the adrenaline-pumped surreality of racing amid rush hour traffic, or hurling a twisted shell of metal and glass through a crash junction made my childhood just a few shades more sepia-toned. Needless to say, I later bought Revenge and Paradise. Other driving games caught my attention over the years, such as Stuntman, Motorstorm, and, to a lesser extent, Forza. But I fell off of that bandwagon, and onto more narrative- or action-centric games. My history with simulators is decidedly less terrestrial. I spent many an hour triggering massive wrecks in Train Simulator, or trying to tame a wild Jet Ranger amid towering NYC buildings in FS'98. Then combat flight sims, such as IL2-Sturmovik, became my main PC occupation. That's a simulator in a nutshell. They're frustrating and time-consuming. They force you to learn their logic and to keep a cool head under pressure. But once you manage to make them do what you intend, not only do you feel a great sense of achievement, you have a pretty concrete idea of how to do it in reality.
I like a lot of the games, not really Need for Speed though. I like sim and arcade. Flatout 2, NCG and Beamng is mainly what I am playing now. I hae had Fuel for a few years. It is very arcade but an increadable world and weather, as well as some tough races. A lot of fun just to drive around.
Well, since 1nsane was pretty much my first game including cars(frogger excluded ) I would go for physics and destruction as my number one priority in a car game. I was like 7 when I played it and I never saw anything like that ever before. I couldn't beat any of the races besides capture the flag, so I just played the free roam. The freedom you've mentioned...well that was a big plus for me too....When you think about it BeamNG is like a more realistic and better looking version of 1nsane. We have great physics, great destruction and a lot of freedom. We only need races and bisons on the Canyon map Those were a lot of fun to mess with.
There are a variety racing games that have worked for me: Need for Speed 1 Pros: -The thrill of outrunning the law, getting caught ends the race. Cons: can't remember! Need for Speed 2 Pros: -Great immersion, sensation of speed. (For the time) -Beautiful environments and cars. (For the time) Cons: -Predictable arcadey handling Need for Speed 3 Pros: -Modding cars -More visuals. Cons: -Same cop evasion mechanic, just more complex -simplistic physics -...Starting to get bored of the franchise Need For Speed Porsche Unleashed Pros: -Very immersive environments, cars, sounds -Semi realistic physics that were still forgiving, but really showed the differences between models (in my memory, very much like what Forza 4 has) -Physics good enough to give a sense of satisfaction just for making it around the track in a rear engined turbo monster -Consistency. Tons of models that were all accurate relative to each other and beautiful enough to examine in detail Cons: -Narrow scope Midtown Madness Pros: -The urban playground lead to fun exploring, evading cops, and figuring out how to drive fast in urban environments (onramps, highways, intersections, sidewalks etc) -Hoards of traffic with panicky simple AI led to tons of hilarity -Immersion. Pedestrians, traffic lights, traffic. -The first serious open environment game I remember. Cons: -Laughably bad physics -Low detail models Live For Speed Pros: -Incredibly accurate physics, to the point where I can directly correlate my track experience to the game and vice versa -Taking my lap times and screwups personally due to the above, leading to research into vehicle setup -extensive vehicle fine tuning and seeing the results -FFB derived from physics model Cons: -Lack of immersion (dull environments, simple sounds, not much sensation of speed) -Generic cars that don't really inspire awe -Sometimes feels more like a tool than a game -Online playing always had high ping and infrequent car position updates, leading to jerky unimersive play Forza 4 Pros: -Sexy cars, sexy sounds! -Real life race tracks -Realistic enough physics -Consideration of drifting physics and gameplay -Online competition -In game visual customization Cons: -Stuck on a console Overall I can boil it down to a few concepts: Immersion: Consistency, sensation of speed, good graphics, detailed sound, well thought out presentation, a suspension of disbelief, as well as a feeling of trust in the game that it won't throw bugs or illogical curveballs at you. Opportunity: With online play, or AI, or physics interaction, series of events coincide to make seemingly random hilarious mayhem, or moments of zen. Physics sandboxes are great for this. Risk/Reward: There has to be a challenge, and a feeling that something real is on the line. An extreme example of this is Day Z, where I am practically sweating with fear of getting taken out and losing everything. It can't be too easy to just respawn/reset/try again. Without immersive gameplay this is hard to do. The BeamNG damage model is a perfect thing to take advantage of here. Appeal to our darker side: Allow the player to do things like destroy stuff, cause mayhem, or other socially unnaceptable things. But again, there has to be a risk associated with this.
A good racing game is a lot of things you have games like Forza GT and Project CARS that aim for a more realistic style, you have your iRacing and rFactor and other simulators and you have your Grid's and NFS games for those that enjoy a bit more arcade. To me I want some realistic physics and damage and nice sounds. So far it seems like Beam is hitting on most of those, two of three isn't bad for a game this early in development. The other thing is the cars need to be designed well. I think one reason why in so many games the race cars seem so squirrely is because of how the game calculates downforce. Now for Forza I think it is just a set number I don't think it is tied to speed at all. If downforce were calculated in real time things might be different in that respect. That way you'd have no grip at low speed but as you speed up you get more and more. So far the physics in this game seem very spot on. The only thing I notice as a bit of an issue is some of the suspension feels very bouncy even when driving on the smooth grid level. Other than that though the steering and tires feel very realistic. The most fun I've had in a racing game is either Mario Kart 64 or Forza 4 not sure which. Obviously they are both very different but they are both fun. Oh another thing idk if this game has it yet but tire psi and temperature are very important to a good racing game.
I tihink it is pretty simple and I have played a lot of racing games. I like all kinds and it comes down that it must be presented well and is fun to play. Some games get too cute, I think it was dirt 3 that required trick doing stunts and tricks. That I do not like, I dont mind it in the game, but not required. I do like the early dirt games. Then there is Forza Horizon. I kind of like it, as I can just pick up and drive and race when I want. Of course now with BNG, once there is racing, I see not reason to play horizon. One game I have played that is on the Arcade side of physics, and AI is screwed up and cheats and does not have the best graphics is Fuel. I have played hundreds of hours on that game. The world and weather is fasinating to me. And there are a lot of good races. But there was some serious frustration on some of those races, as some were almost puzzles in the sense that you needed the right vehicle, make the right short cuts and some real luck to win. It failed in some many ways, and was almost broken. Yet, it had the one ingrediant that matters, it could be really fun. Although it is a required taste, and many hated it. I am hoping Beamng, surpasses my enjoyment of Fuel. And I believe it will. Edit: Added Pic, I really think Fuel is under rated, with 5000 sq mile satelite generated terran and 70 + vehicles, and tremendous weather it still holds me, there are mods that fix some of the problems and graphics. After some thought, I don't know if BNG can surpass it in my enjoyment, maybe. (of course BNG does surpass it in many other ways).
Acutally, i have the same perspective on nfsu 1&2, Its the WHOLE background of that game, The city, the music, and the ridiculous variety of parts you could install on the cars. That game was pretty unique because all the other nfs either had an open world environment not near as industrially run down, too many cops, knock-offs of F1 games, or Didnt have great underground music that made you say holy shit why ive never heard this before? The game was developed during a time when it was cool to do ridiculous jdm mods, when it was easy to hit up friends that will hoon the streets, cops werent as strict. There was also no fucking daytime, no annoying ass sun. I still have a copy of that game, and will never let shit happen to it.
What makes a good racing game? Well, for me, a good physics model and an open world really helps. Right now, I'm playing Euro Truck Sim 2 and SpinTires. And occasionally firing up Assetto Corsa to toss the BMW E30 M3 around the Joux Planes mod track. Sorry, but grip tracks and race cars are too boring IMO. BTW, Midnight Club 3 Dub Edition, even though it wasn't on PC, made the NFSU games look like total jokes in all aspects, especially the racing and the customization. While in NFSU, all you got was JDM "sporty" cars, MC3 had American muscle cars, pickup trucks, motorcycles, European super cars, and even a coupe of SUV's. Random Factoid: The Midnight Club series was made by the same studio who did the Midtown Madness games. Angel Studios was owned by Microsoft before they went on to become a division of Rockstar Games, called Rockstar San Diego. Too bad they haven't made a game on their own ever since Midnight Club LA in 2008. Let's not forget Carmageddon 2: Carpacolypse Now! with its deformable cars and rather complex physics for 1998.
I think Forza Horizon would be almost perfect for you. Realistic physics with a hint of arcade. It has a wide variety of cars; Although, it lacks in the ability to completely customize and tune your rides, but you can paint all, and put body kits on SOME cars though. Also I'm pretty sure your'e asking this question for pc games. Anyways if you have a 360 you should definitely try it.
(imported from here) He seems to hate BeamNG, not sure why he has to hang around the forums and tell everyone though -- And for me, sound makes a good racing game too, one of the main things BeamNG needs, proper sounds.
Decent car handling, Something i feel BeamNG lacks... I really can't control any of the cars at any sort of speed, Neither with an Xbox controller or keyboard. Feels like the tyres are made from ice.
