Help me create a Taxonomy for Videogames!

[DonFerrari]

LGF said:

DonFerrari said:

"simcade" perhaps compared to iRace or something on that level, but certainly not against Project Cars.

Not what's said on the links I've given you.

What's said there is that PCARS's objective is to simulate. Whether they can do it as accurately as iRacing or rFactor is a question of the amount of resources they had (it's kind of an indy game) and the number of things they wanted to include in the game (they had other aspects to develop like dynamic weather, a good number of championships and tracks, etc.).

GT is different. It's the most expensive racing game of all time (GT5 alone has cost 80M€), so resources were not a problem, even considering the amount of content they put in the game. Dynamic weather, damages and proper sound were clearly missing, as their focus was always the handling physics.

Damage is important, but i seriously doubt any simulator really simulates even a farcry of the impact of the damage in the handling compared to real world situation, so it's kinda pointless complain about it. And unless we are talking about minor damage, no one would keep driving the car after damage in the real world.

When you have games like F1 96 where your car was affected differently depending on what part was affected (front wind, rear wind, etc.), it's not pointless. Even if we're far from simulating 100% of the impact, having a reasonable approximation is not the same as nothing.

If it's minor damage, they continue. If not, they're going to the pit stop. In simulation games, that's what happens.

GT have a lot of real world tracks and fictional.

TOCA RD1 had 50 real tracks, while GT3 had only 2. Only then they started to increase. My point is: simulation was never their priority.

How many cars does the other games have and allow you to exchange? If you preffer to be stuck on a carreer determing your car for several races, your choice.

But that's simulation! What GT does is compromising simulation in favour of more fun/entertainment. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. It's what they believe is best for their game. It's their philosophy. It's "simcade"!

I think you are confounding car handling simulation with "life simulation", "carreer simulation", "real track simulation", "sound simulation". Those aren't even needed for the first to be good.

Project Cars can be said to have a better simulation on carreer or sound? Perhaps, but their despiction of the real tracks isn't that accurated for my taste, the car handling is bad and even their damage isn't very well done.

And having the car handling different depending of the damage, but being nowhere near the real life effect is pointless, that would put closer to arcade than to sim, because it's just a feature (or if Carmaggedon is more of a sim because cars get destroyed?).

If you want to have a real simulation on GT for damage, after you get any major bump just hit "start" and use the option forfeit race, because in real life that is what would happen, you would end up losing.

Simulation was always a priority, maybe not on what you think simulation is, but on the handling of the car and number of different cars.

For you Flight Simulator to be a propper simulator would need board service, cabin communication, passengers complaining of stuffs and whatnot or how to properly fly an aircraft? You are really confunding DRIVING SIMULATOR (that is what is described on the box even) with a lot of other things that don't really are necessary for the simulation.