Vanishing Point's Faster Cars
John Kitchar
winning heat 3 with the Focus and TVR, unlocking a 600 HP Austin Martin
(sp?), Lotus Elite(if god had a car...), and the Jag sedan(yawn).
The gameplay is changing---*no doubt* collisions have much less negative
effect, allowing for much faster speeds with this new set of cars. If you
hit an AI now, you don't fly out of control and roll over *nearly as easy*
as with previous cars. The collision physics model is changing for the
better---relaxing greatly for these faster cars/speeds. The Lotus Elite is
so fast and handles so well it will take your breath away. The Lotus has
this "sound" when you are going really fast, like a turbulent wind swirling
around the body, very cool effect. I'm just shattering all my previous best
times with this car. On the big downhill section of the harbor track, the
Lotus approached 200 mph. It's a whole new game now.
More notes: As soon as I unlocked the Elite, I noticed more degrees of
throttle control with the trigger. Very nice.
This could turn out to be my favorite videogame ever.
JMK
DarienAllen.com
<jkit...@netpci.com> we were graced with this statement:
>The gameplay is changing---*no doubt* collisions have much less negative
>effect, allowing for much faster speeds with this new set of cars. If you
>hit an AI now, you don't fly out of control and roll over *nearly as easy*
>as with previous cars. The collision physics model is changing for the
>better---relaxing greatly for these faster cars/speeds. The Lotus Elite is
>so fast and handles so well it will take your breath away. The Lotus has
>this "sound" when you are going really fast, like a turbulent wind swirling
>around the body, very cool effect. I'm just shattering all my previous best
>times with this car. On the big downhill section of the harbor track, the
>Lotus approached 200 mph. It's a whole new game now.
Why should the physics engine get better as you go further along? Why
not have a good physics collision model to start?
------------------------
Darien Allen
ICQ-2927081/AOL-Dezign369
Was wünscht jeder? KOPF!
Was benötigt jeder? KOPF!
John Kitchar
DarienAllen.com wrote in message ...
>Why should the physics engine get better as you go further along? Why
>not have a good physics collision model to start?
>
What was wrong with it before? I mean, it was pretty fun in the earlier and
slower moving races, knowing that an impact with an AI or traffic usually
meant BIG trouble. It added gameplay to the slower races IMO. I suppose
you'd rather have ping-pong collisions ala RR? Now with the fastest cars,
there is less emphasis on collision "price" and more on just driving these
beasts as fast as you possibly can. Let me tell you though, you still can
get into big trouble if you really screw up...like these cars catch serious
air and if you land on an AI, big ouch.
Why did the the developers do it? It probably would be best to ask Clockwork
Games themselves but IMO, it was a reward for unlocking the fastest (nearly
fastest, I have 3 to go) cars in the game. So they change/relax the
collision gameplay *a little* for the fastest cars. Neat. Whatever the case,
believe me when I say it's fun to finally open these monsters (like the
special edition Lotus Elite) up and see what they can really do. You'd like
this a lot I would imagine. Hey, don't knock it until you try it...
For a guy who I know loves NFS3, it really surprises me that you are
deciding to pick this ARCADE racer apart with a needle. It really does
nothing to encourage developers to innovate past stale sequels and
predictable gameplay. I mean, what do we have here: 1) RR ping-pong
collision model or 2) GT essentially no-consequence collision model. Any
developer who strays from these 2 collision models will pay the price? I can
imagine what Clockwork is thinking now: "Maybe we should have just used a
ping-pong physics model. It would have been a hell of a lot easier, that's
for sure."
JMK
DarienAllen.com
<jkit...@netpci.com> we were graced with this statement:
>Why did the the developers do it? It probably would be best to ask Clockwork
>Games themselves but IMO, it was a reward for unlocking the fastest (nearly
>fastest, I have 3 to go) cars in the game. So they change/relax the
>collision gameplay *a little* for the fastest cars. Neat. Whatever the case,
>believe me when I say it's fun to finally open these monsters (like the
>special edition Lotus Elite) up and see what they can really do. You'd like
>this a lot I would imagine. Hey, don't knock it until you try it...
Your salesman skills SUCK John...save it for someone who doesn't know
your history.
>For a guy who I know loves NFS3, it really surprises me that you are
>deciding to pick this ARCADE racer apart with a needle. It really does
>nothing to encourage developers to innovate past stale sequels and
>predictable gameplay. I mean, what do we have here: 1) RR ping-pong
>collision model or 2) GT essentially no-consequence collision model. Any
>developer who strays from these 2 collision models will pay the price? I can
>imagine what Clockwork is thinking now: "Maybe we should have just used a
>ping-pong physics model. It would have been a hell of a lot easier, that's
>for sure."
Gee I'm sorry I don't remember NFS3 having a physics engine where your
vehicle caught air incredibly easy early on and then suddenly didn't
later on.
vanqu...@my-deja.com
It has nothing to do with the physics model changing, it just the way
the cars are set up. Different cars have different shapes and different
weights - this is why they all react differently in a collision.
--Vanquish
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
vanqu...@my-deja.com
"John Kitchar" <jkit...@netpci.com> wrote:
> For a guy who I know loves NFS3, it really surprises me that you are
> deciding to pick this ARCADE racer apart with a needle. It really does
> nothing to encourage developers to innovate past stale sequels and
> predictable gameplay. I mean, what do we have here: 1) RR ping-pong
> collision model or 2) GT essentially no-consequence collision model.
Any
> developer who strays from these 2 collision models will pay the
price? I can
> imagine what Clockwork is thinking now: "Maybe we should have just
used a
> ping-pong physics model. It would have been a hell of a lot easier,
that's
> for sure."
>
> JMK
Sorry to butt in on this 1-on-1 discussion but...
I think Clockwork have done the right thing. IMO, it's about time
someone had the balls to be experimental and push the boundaries! We
need to embrace the next stage of racing game physics and it's about
time that people realised what a rutt we are all stuck in! I agree with
JMK, RR and GT's collisions are completely shite compared to VP's and
VP is a much better game for being original.
Like it or not, if development teams didn't push the boundaries and try
to show the gaming public something new and better then we'd still be
playing Pole Position!!!
BobGeorge0
"John Kitchar" <jkit...@netpci.com> wrote:
[snip]
> This could turn out to be my favorite videogame ever.
>
I have to giggle when I read this John, I think this is the tenth time
you used this line on the game you were currently playing. :-)
--
Robert P Holley
holl...@delanet.com
"U said my heart's just like an open book
But there are lines you've never seen"
DarienAllen.com
vanqu...@my-deja.com we were graced with this statement:
>It has nothing to do with the physics model changing, it just the way
>the cars are set up. Different cars have different shapes and different
>weights - this is why they all react differently in a collision.
All the early cars take flight pretty easily....later vehicles don't.
That's not a unique collision engine.
John Kitchar
BobGeorge0 wrote in message <93hs5u$pnu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <93fpq...@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "John Kitchar" <jkit...@netpci.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>> This could turn out to be my favorite videogame ever.
>>
>
>I have to giggle when I read this John, I think this is the tenth time
>you used this line on the game you were currently playing. :-)
>
I have to wonder if Rush came after Vanishing Point, would it be my favorite
game ever? Possibly, given my previous track record. You got me.
But there have been only a few games that I've rushed to finish because of
the addictive quality of the gameplay. Vanishing Point rewards you for
almost every single thing you do in the game and I simply can't stop playing
it. I'll say that VP is the most addicting game I've ever played. I must
unlock more cars.
Last night I unlocked the Shelby Cobra---woohoo. I wonder what's the last
car to unlock...the Viper? I have to know.
2 cars to go.
JMK
John Kitchar
DarienAllen.com wrote in message ...
>vehicle caught air incredibly easy early on and then suddenly didn't
>later on.
>
And only *you* would/could put a negative twist on this. You're
burnt-out---stop playing videogames.
JMK
John Kitchar
DarienAllen.com wrote in message ...
>vanqu...@my-deja.com we were graced with this statement:
>
>>It has nothing to do with the physics model changing, it just the way
>>the cars are set up. Different cars have different shapes and different
>>weights - this is why they all react differently in a collision.
>
>All the early cars take flight pretty easily....later vehicles don't.
>
>That's not a unique collision engine.
>
Hold the phone. Not all later vehicles. The jag wrecks easily like the rest.
The big AM doesn't as well as the Lotus. I think he could have the answer
here.
The weight and shape of the car determines the collision physics?
Interesting.
JMK
DarienAllen.com
<jkit...@netpci.com> we were graced with this statement:
>
Wait a minute...there's a GOOD twist to having cars that fly too
easily into the air at the beginning of the game? God you're
delusional you probably think TD3 was a great game for the same
reason...
sycle
>>deciding to pick this ARCADE racer apart with a needle. It really does
>>nothing to encourage developers to innovate past stale sequels and
>>predictable gameplay. I mean, what do we have here: 1) RR ping-pong
>>collision model or 2) GT essentially no-consequence collision model. Any
>>developer who strays from these 2 collision models will pay the price? I can
>>imagine what Clockwork is thinking now: "Maybe we should have just used a
>>ping-pong physics model. It would have been a hell of a lot easier, that's
>>for sure."
>
>Gee I'm sorry I don't remember NFS3 having a physics engine where your
>vehicle caught air incredibly easy early on and then suddenly didn't
>later on.
Didn't you post a while back that you actually LIKED the game
afterall? Have you changed your mind again?
John Kitchar
DarienAllen.com wrote in message
<21lp5t00823ovtlqh...@4ax.com>...
>Now at the time of Thu, 11 Jan 2001 04:48:08 +1000, "John Kitchar"
><jkit...@netpci.com> we were graced with this statement:
>
>>
>>DarienAllen.com wrote in message ...
>>>Gee I'm sorry I don't remember NFS3 having a physics engine where your
>>>vehicle caught air incredibly easy early on and then suddenly didn't
>>>later on.
>>>
>>
>>And only *you* would/could put a negative twist on this. You're
>>burnt-out---stop playing videogames.
>
>Wait a minute...there's a GOOD twist to having cars that fly too
>easily into the air at the beginning of the game? God you're
>delusional you probably think TD3 was a great game for the same
>reason...
>
>
Never played TD3 sorry, no comment.
You're so obsessed with this flying through the air stuff---the game must be
getting on your nerves I imagine. Here's a tip Darien old buddy: Stay off
the f'g walls and avoid all traffic and AI. You know, drive *well* and the
game will reward you. Driving like a hack and "flying through the air" after
collisions *isn't the point of the game* now is it? The "flying through the
air" stuff is just the developer's little way of saying "you f'd up". It's
not supposed to be an objective.
Get a clue man, JMK
DarienAllen.com
<sycle...@yahoo.com> we were graced with this statement:
Liking a game is different from blindly claiming a game has no faults.
DarienAllen.com
<jkit...@netpci.com> we were graced with this statement:
>You're so obsessed with this flying through the air stuff---the game must be
>getting on your nerves I imagine. Here's a tip Darien old buddy: Stay off
>the f'g walls and avoid all traffic and AI. You know, drive *well* and the
>game will reward you. Driving like a hack and "flying through the air" after
>collisions *isn't the point of the game* now is it? The "flying through the
>air" stuff is just the developer's little way of saying "you f'd up". It's
>not supposed to be an objective.
John that has to be the LAMEST attempt at an excuse I have heard you
come up with...this week.
So the excuse for poor physics early is...oh that's ok later on they
get better?
Unlike you I have the ability to enjoy a game and admit it has faults.
You on the other hand if you DO decide to like a game never can admit
that a title has faults.
This is a pattern you've displayed over and over again.
It's getting pretty tired.
John Kitchar
DarienAllen.com wrote in message ...
>You on the other hand if you DO decide to like a game never can admit
>that a title has faults.
>
>This is a pattern you've displayed over and over again.
>
What a nice thing to say Darien, but sadly, it's completely false: Remember
this? A quote from Jan 7:
"DarienAllen.com wrote in message ...
>The rumble doesn't help in this respect because I'm still
>not getting the rear end sense that I should.
Excellent observation---VP fails to provide rumble feedback when your tires
lose grip or when your car lands after a jump. Probably my biggest complain
with the game overall; no feel from the rumble pack unless you hit
something.
JMK"
>It's getting pretty tired.
>
Your errors are becoming more frequent. Try to be more accurate.
"1st you tease me then you please me".
JMK
DarienAllen.com
<jkit...@netpci.com> we were graced with this statement:
> What a nice thing to say Darien, but sadly, it's completely false: Remember
>this? A quote from Jan 7:
>
>"DarienAllen.com wrote in message ...
>>The rumble doesn't help in this respect because I'm still
>>not getting the rear end sense that I should.
>
>Excellent observation---VP fails to provide rumble feedback when your tires
>lose grip or when your car lands after a jump. Probably my biggest complain
>with the game overall; no feel from the rumble pack unless you hit
>something.
>
>JMK"
>
>
>>It's getting pretty tired.
>>
>
>Your errors are becoming more frequent. Try to be more accurate.
Errors implies multiple....I very well remember the quote which does't
change my general belief.
Why is that when someone asks me about Lemans, or VP I can give an
accurate account of the good and bad of each title. Giving fair weight
to each. My beef with you has ALWAYS been that I don't think you give
fair weight to both sides of the story in any thread that you
participate in.
John Kitchar
DarienAllen.com wrote in message
<6rk16tkn4uuajqmqp...@4ax.com>...
>Now at the time of Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:22:03 +1000, "John Kitchar"
><jkit...@netpci.com> we were graced with this statement:
>
>> What a nice thing to say Darien, but sadly, it's completely false:
Remember
>>this? A quote from Jan 7:
>>
>>"DarienAllen.com wrote in message ...
>>>The rumble doesn't help in this respect because I'm still
>>>not getting the rear end sense that I should.
>>
>>Excellent observation---VP fails to provide rumble feedback when your
tires
>>lose grip or when your car lands after a jump. Probably my biggest
complain
>>with the game overall; no feel from the rumble pack unless you hit
>>something.
>>
>>JMK"
>>
>>
>>>It's getting pretty tired.
>>>
>>
>>Your errors are becoming more frequent. Try to be more accurate.
>
>Errors implies multiple....I very well remember the quote which does't
>change my general belief.
>
Wlll I've stated on several occations about VP's framerate dropping to 30 in
the behind car view. Also, I've agreed that it's difficult (actually
impossible for me) to handle the cars in the behind car view. Negative and
negative again. I thought I was presenting both the negatives and positives
about this fine game, especially when you consider my comment about the
jumppack support above. So I've stated 3 negatives about VP. Hence I'm
calling you on more than one error. I recall you stating that VP shouldn't
even be "spoken in the same breath" as Lemans and some other DC racer (can't
recall---SGT?). You still stand behind such a comment or is this another
error?
>Why is that when someone asks me about Lemans, or VP I can give an
>accurate account of the good and bad of each title. Giving fair weight
>to each. My beef with you has ALWAYS been that I don't think you give
>fair weight to both sides of the story in any thread that you
>participate in.
>
Sorry you feel that way. Are YOU giving VP a fair review? More accurate and
fair than my impressions you believe?
JMK
DarienAllen.com
<jkit...@netpci.com> we were graced with this statement:
>Wlll I've stated on several occations about VP's framerate dropping to 30 in
>the behind car view. Also, I've agreed that it's difficult (actually
>impossible for me) to handle the cars in the behind car view. Negative and
>negative again. I thought I was presenting both the negatives and positives
>about this fine game, especially when you consider my comment about the
>jumppack support above. So I've stated 3 negatives about VP. Hence I'm
>calling you on more than one error. I recall you stating that VP shouldn't
>even be "spoken in the same breath" as Lemans and some other DC racer (can't
>recall---SGT?). You still stand behind such a comment or is this another
>error?
Yes because I don't think you can make the comparison between a game
like Lemans and a game like Vanishing Point. Let me clarify in that I
feel that they are both racing titles...but the focus is SO completely
different that I don't see how you compare something like Lemans to
something like Vanishing Point.
>>Why is that when someone asks me about Lemans, or VP I can give an
>>accurate account of the good and bad of each title. Giving fair weight
>>to each. My beef with you has ALWAYS been that I don't think you give
>>fair weight to both sides of the story in any thread that you
>>participate in.
>>
>
>Sorry you feel that way. Are YOU giving VP a fair review? More accurate and
>fair than my impressions you believe?
I've stated the 2 problems I have with VP. Yet I've continued to
recommend it to ppl and NEVER said that it should not be picked up by
other folks. I would rather play Lemans than VP...but VP is damn fun
....that's that.
John Kitchar
DarienAllen.com wrote in message ...
>recommend it to ppl and NEVER said that it should not be picked up by
>other folks. I would rather play Lemans than VP...but VP is damn fun
>....that's that.
>
I could dig up a post where you mention something about having to play
Lemans to wash the stale (VP) taste out of you mouth---something along that
line. Pretty harsh IMO.
In any case, I'm glad to see you're enjoying the game. And after the initial
wow factor and beating the game rather quickly, I agree with you that Lemans
is still the better game. VP was one hell of a ride though.
Give me Lemans with VP tracks....now that would be something.
I'm playing MSR at the moment and I'm not impressed.
JMK
DarienAllen.com
<jkit...@netpci.com> we were graced with this statement:
>I could dig up a post where you mention something about having to play
>Lemans to wash the stale (VP) taste out of you mouth---something along that
>line. Pretty harsh IMO.
Harsh but exactly how I felt at the time. Nothing more.
>In any case, I'm glad to see you're enjoying the game. And after the initial
>wow factor and beating the game rather quickly, I agree with you that Lemans
>is still the better game. VP was one hell of a ride though.
>
>Give me Lemans with VP tracks....now that would be something.
>
>I'm playing MSR at the moment and I'm not impressed.
I posted way back about MSR...basically I think it's beautiful looking
game and I REALLY dig the music stations.....but there are too many
races against time for me. I find that kinda thing boring as all hell.
At least in VP it's traffic makes you feel that it's about more than
just the timer ticking....
John Kitchar
DarienAllen.com wrote in message ...
><jkit...@netpci.com> we were graced with this statement:
>
>>I could dig up a post where you mention something about having to play
>>Lemans to wash the stale (VP) taste out of you mouth---something along
that
>>line. Pretty harsh IMO.
>
>Harsh but exactly how I felt at the time. Nothing more.
>
>>In any case, I'm glad to see you're enjoying the game. And after the
initial
>>wow factor and beating the game rather quickly, I agree with you that
Lemans
>>is still the better game. VP was one hell of a ride though.
>>
>>Give me Lemans with VP tracks....now that would be something.
>>
>>I'm playing MSR at the moment and I'm not impressed.
>
>I posted way back about MSR...basically I think it's beautiful looking
>game and I REALLY dig the music stations.....but there are too many
>races against time for me. I find that kinda thing boring as all hell.
>At least in VP it's traffic makes you feel that it's about more than
>just the timer ticking....
>
>
I'm going to wait before commenting much about MSR---too early. I'm noticing
framerate problems with the high detail mirror and, gad, smoke effects on.
You know there's a problem when it's an option to turn them off. O-well.
JMK
Raymond McKeithen II
"John Kitchar" <jkit...@netpci.com> wrote in message
news:93tlp...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
> I'm playing MSR at the moment and I'm not impressed.
My feelings on MSR can be summed up with the equation "Kudos = Crap."
--
Raymond
remove "suchiepai" for email
DarienAllen.com
II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> we were graced with this statement:
>
>"John Kitchar" <jkit...@netpci.com> wrote in message
>news:93tlp...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>>
>> I'm playing MSR at the moment and I'm not impressed.
>
>My feelings on MSR can be summed up with the equation "Kudos = Crap."
I normally am at the COMPLETE opposite of Raymond in ALL things...but
here I agree..the Kudos system is too easy to abuse, that and too many
races against the clock.
Paul Kelly
isn't in the offing.
Good gaming,
Paul Kelly
Sports Reviewers -- Where Gameplay Still Matters
www.sportsreviewers.com
Paul Kelly
Sports Reviewers -- Where Gameplay Still Matters
www.sportsreviewers.com
pa...@sportsreviewers.com
bsb...@my-deja.com
DarienAllen.com <darie...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Now at the time of Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:45:34 GMT, "Raymond McKeithen
> II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> we were graced with this statement:
>
> >
> >"John Kitchar" <jkit...@netpci.com> wrote in message
> >news:93tlp...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> >>
> >> I'm playing MSR at the moment and I'm not impressed.
> >
> >My feelings on MSR can be summed up with the equation "Kudos = Crap."
>
> I normally am at the COMPLETE opposite of Raymond in ALL things...
Wait...complete opposite of Raymond in ALL things? So if he's a guy what
does that make you? :P
Brian
John Kitchar
Paul Kelly wrote in message <3a63c213....@news1.attglobal.net>...
>Uh-oh ... I've been so stoked to play this game. I hope a letdown
>isn't in the offing.
>
Give you an example to chew on Paul.
Imagine a 3 lap time trial where you have to have one best lap of say 32
seconds. So on lap one I drive fast and corner like I should---you know,
outside-in-outside with no dumping speed by using the handbrake for a 31
second winning lap say. Then, to rack up kudos on the last two laps, I use
the handbrake for wild "kudos" powerslides, and of course, way slower lap
times overall. Big points rewarded for dumping speed with the handbrake.
It's all really weird to me.
But these are just early time trials---I'm sure later on I won't be able to
abuse the kudo system like this. It is getting harder for sure. And, some of
the tracks are worth the price of admission alone. The game is good---weird
but good.
My initial impressions of the game were not good---the first tracks looked
rough and the graphics had that 200mhz PC game look to them. But after a few
more sessions and witnessing the most detailed and beautiful night city
tracks I've ever seen, I'm respecting the game more and more. Much more
since I tinted the windows enough not to see the cheesy low-res 2D driver so
easily---hardtop all the time also helps realism. I say screw the kudos and
just race, which is exactly what I'm trying to do. But the game locks you
out of races if you don't have enough kudos, even if you win! So you have to
go back and force powerslides on previously won races. The catch is if you
lose, you lose all your previous kudos.
I can deal with the strange gameplay---I know what I have to work for so I'm
playing the thing. It's different; I'll say that for sure. Hard as hell
though.
JMK
Jere
John Kitchar wrote:
>
> My initial impressions of the game were not good---the first tracks looked
> rough and the graphics had that 200mhz PC game look to them. But after a few
> more sessions and witnessing the most detailed and beautiful night city
> tracks I've ever seen, I'm respecting the game more and more. JMK
Agree. First couple San Fransico tracks were a disapointment for me, but later
tracks get graphically MUCH better, escpecially those long Tokyo tracks at
nights are sight to behold. I have been playing on and off MSR since beginning
of november,and I really think its one of the most addictive games ever. Only
problem is that I have too little time for all these great racers I have
bought...F355,Le Mans,MSR and now VP. But the great thing is that all these
racers are all different from each other and fun to play on their own.
and sorry about my bad english :)
Paul Kelly
Actually sounds pretty interesting. Vanishing Point has a bit of a
different concept than most racers, and I'm digging it.
And the whole "game adjusting to the DC internal clock" concept is
pretty cool. Considering that I play mostly late at night, it looks
like I'll be seeing a lot of London at night unless I change my DC
game clock!
Good gaming,
Paul Kelly
Sports Reviewers -- Where Gameplay Still Matters
www.sportsreviewers.com
Paul Kelly
DarienAllen.com
we were graced with this statement:
>In article <32976tkgvgrjdrdm2...@4ax.com>,
> DarienAllen.com <darie...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Now at the time of Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:45:34 GMT, "Raymond McKeithen
>> II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> we were graced with this statement:
>>
>> >
>> >"John Kitchar" <jkit...@netpci.com> wrote in message
>> >news:93tlp...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>> >>
>> >> I'm playing MSR at the moment and I'm not impressed.
>> >
>> >My feelings on MSR can be summed up with the equation "Kudos = Crap."
>>
>> I normally am at the COMPLETE opposite of Raymond in ALL things...
>
>
>Wait...complete opposite of Raymond in ALL things? So if he's a guy what
>does that make you? :P
You're gonna pay for this one....