Help me create a Taxonomy for Videogames!

[LGF]

DonFerrari said:

LGF said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think this is going a bit off-topic. Although I find this discussion interesting, I'll try to finish it now. Just some remarks:

As I've told you before, I'm not going to discuss handling. Just say again that GT in that aspect is classified as "simcade".

I haven't confounded handling with the other aspects. What I've said (and I thought I was clear) was that GT's philosophy was more arcade-oriented than PCARS. That was evident not only in handling, but also in these other aspects.

You're entitled to your opinion, whatever it is. But you're the first one I know to think PCARS's damage physics are pointless.

Hitting the start button for every major bump is like saying to do the same for every penalty you concede on FIFA. It'd be a shame.

Pure simulation was never a priority, not even in handling. It's not me who says that, it's the gaming community.

That said, I stress again that GT has its place.