Oh dear oh dear

[lennesco]

This "game" is enough to defeat the most patient racer. I have never seen a racing sim so determined to put the user off at every turn, from the tedious video intros to the clunky race/career choice modes to the equally tedious hanging about in various eye candy modes while you wait in total exasperation at the interminable screen loads, unnecessary padding (so typical of codemasters), and I haven't even started yet on the Steam control freakery.

For now I don't want to go online. But if I choose that option I have to go through the mind-numbing intro, the irritating PR girl whose boring explanations I cannot seem to bypass. I cannot find a way of starting the sim then simply recalling my control and other options. It seems I have to start all over again with a new name, new options, laboriously re-entering all my control mappings. Could someone please advise on how to simply enter the sim, and go QUICKLY to what matters: setup and practice or race. Thanks.

As to the physics: You only have to watch real footage from cockpit cameras to see that real F1 cars do NOT travel on rails. They have inherent understeer followed by oversteer/drift on corner exit. I've applied the 85% grip tweak and then default then the tyre "less-grip" tweak. They improve things but there is still absolutely zero feel for traction or slip.

The manual gear changes are annoyingly laggy and ruin a sense of connection with the car. If you opt for auto clutch, when you approach a corner after changing down, at the apex the rpm fall away to idle as though the clutch is kicking in, because the sim "thinks" you want to engage auto clutch. Thus you have to keep rpm screaming at all times. Is there a way around this?

Codemasters are masters at making "games" whose interfaces insult the intelligence of the user. They introduce layer upon layer of padded and unneccesary video vignettes and overbearingly delaying menu systems which are entirely counter intuitive and simply detract from the enjoyment. You only need to see all the eye candy once before you are shouting at the screen to go away and just give me the nuts and bolts please.

One day this "game" will be half decent, but it won't be Codemasters who achieve it. It'll be all the kind tweakers here and elsewhere who obliterate the dumbed down crud and drag this "sim" kicking and screaming into a just about drivable state.

Will Codemasters never learn? They've turned a potentially decent sim into a Wii product for "family entertainmnent". The withdrawal of PC boxed versions in favour of Steam's control freak paradigm just about completes the crassness of this release.

From game start up to actual driving on average has taken me ten minutes of totally wasted time while those ridiculous menus grind their way through the abysmal ruination of any spontaneous enjoyment.

[jnl42]

Someone found the thesaurus.




Sorry, had to say it. I agree with most of what you're saying.

[leahcim]

Originally Posted by lennesco

Codemasters are masters at making "games" whose interfaces insult the intelligence of the user.
...
From game start up to actual driving on average has taken me ten minutes of totally wasted time

If it takes you 10 minutes it sounds like they've been pretty accurate judging your intelligence

TBH I'm not a huge fan of having to navigate menus either, and thought similar in Dirt 2, but this game will let you lap and lap and lap and lap and lap and, well you get the idea.

The races are long, so the truth is, the amount of time you need to spend in the menus pales.

Although I don't rate the physics, the solution isn't changing grip and the cars in this game don't travel on rails. It's certainly a lot better than Grid (and not as far from most sims as people might kid themselves. Driving games are simply not like driving, not even like nipping to the shops in your car, they are just games and every game that's released you see the same rants and raves, I've written a few myself. At least give codemasters the credit for not pretending their game is "a sim" whatever that means. What we need to buy is a car. Drive the car when you want to drive and then find a game genre you actually like

This game is fun to play. With emphasis on the 2nd and 4th words.

[adriecoot]

Originally Posted by lennesco

This "game" is enough to defeat the most patient racer. I have never seen a racing sim so determined to put the user off at every turn, from the tedious video intros to the clunky race/career choice modes to the equally tedious hanging about in various eye candy modes while you wait in total exasperation at the interminable screen loads, unnecessary padding (so typical of codemasters), and I haven't even started yet on the Steam control freakery.

For now I don't want to go online. But if I choose that option I have to go through the mind-numbing intro, the irritating PR girl whose boring explanations I cannot seem to bypass. I cannot find a way of starting the sim then simply recalling my control and other options. It seems I have to start all over again with a new name, new options, laboriously re-entering all my control mappings. Could someone please advise on how to simply enter the sim, and go QUICKLY to what matters: setup and practice or race. Thanks.

As to the physics: You only have to watch real footage from cockpit cameras to see that real F1 cars do NOT travel on rails. They have inherent understeer followed by oversteer/drift on corner exit. I've applied the 85% grip tweak and then default then the tyre "less-grip" tweak. They improve things but there is still absolutely zero feel for traction or slip.

The manual gear changes are annoyingly laggy and ruin a sense of connection with the car. If you opt for auto clutch, when you approach a corner after changing down, at the apex the rpm fall away to idle as though the clutch is kicking in, because the sim "thinks" you want to engage auto clutch. Thus you have to keep rpm screaming at all times. Is there a way around this?

Codemasters are masters at making "games" whose interfaces insult the intelligence of the user. They introduce layer upon layer of padded and unneccesary video vignettes and overbearingly delaying menu systems which are entirely counter intuitive and simply detract from the enjoyment. You only need to see all the eye candy once before you are shouting at the screen to go away and just give me the nuts and bolts please.

One day this "game" will be half decent, but it won't be Codemasters who achieve it. It'll be all the kind tweakers here and elsewhere who obliterate the dumbed down crud and drag this "sim" kicking and screaming into a just about drivable state.

Will Codemasters never learn? They've turned a potentially decent sim into a Wii product for "family entertainmnent". The withdrawal of PC boxed versions in favour of Steam's control freak paradigm just about completes the crassness of this release.

From game start up to actual driving on average has taken me ten minutes of totally wasted time while those ridiculous menus grind their way through the abysmal ruination of any spontaneous enjoyment.

Just out of curiosity.. how old are you? please dont get offended, i am 31 years old myself and i think the main "problem" with this game is that it is aimed mostly at kids and when we adults play it expecting a simulation like iRacing or rFactor we get dissapointed.

[johnyknoxville]

Originally Posted by leahcim

Although I don't rate the physics, the solution isn't changing grip and the cars in this game don't travel on rails. It's certainly a lot better than Grid (and not as far from most sims as people might kid themselves. Driving games are simply not like driving, not even like nipping to the shops in your car, they are just games and every game that's released you see the same rants and raves, I've written a few myself. At least give codemasters the credit for not pretending their game is "a sim" whatever that means. What we need to buy is a car. Drive the car when you want to drive and then find a game genre you actually like

This game is fun to play. With emphasis on the 2nd and 4th words.

couldnt of put it better myself
yes u can get the feeling that u are actually driving an f1 car
but in real life i dnt think any sim racer could race an accurate f1 sim
then do the same in a real f1 car PERIOD

[Derek Speare]

Originally Posted by adriecoot

Just out of curiosity.. how old are you? please dont get offended, i am 31 years old myself and i think the main "problem" with this game is that it is aimed mostly at kids and when we adults play it expecting a simulation like iRacing or rFactor we get dissapointed.

I'm 43 and have been gaming on the PC since the days of the IBM 8088. I've seen hundreds of games come and go, few have stayed. Unfortunately, the collective and overall intelligence level of the "average gamer" isn't as high as it once was. I remember having to literally rebuild my systems just to get some obscure driver to work...DOS, IRQs, QEMM386, game patches ad nauseum...

Fast forward to 2010 and the average gamer really needs no intelligence. Computers literally configure themselves, and games run (mostly) reliably. However, the fact that everyone has a PC means 2010 is the era of "games for the masses". That said, we get that type of game. F1 2010 is an example of some of this, but I don't think it's too bad of a game. Yes, it's a game, and all are, and it has its defects - many have been much worse - but I have accepted it and found it to be fun.

I just did a test and was able to go from double clicking on the F1 icon to green light in a race in 2:40. Far from 10 minutes, but I just did a Gran Prix and clicked all the way thru to see how fast. I do agree with the OP that this "life of a formula one driver" is just pure rubbish. I want to hit it and go. All the pro drivers are irrelevant and that's just an absurd form of pandering and ignorant entrainment.

On balance, the game has serious potential. The graphics are astounding, the quality of the racing experience is good, and there is a great selection of cars and tracks. I am skeptical that the modding community can turn it into what is its potential. I think the best we can hope to see are tweaks.

Derek

[JumpStart]

Originally Posted by DeeMoNay

I'm 43 and have been gaming on the PC since the days of the IBM 8088. I've seen hundreds of games come and go, few have stayed. Unfortunately, the collective and overall intelligence level of the "average gamer" isn't as high as it once was. I remember having to literally rebuild my systems just to get some obscure driver to work...DOS, IRQs, QEMM386, game patches ad nauseum...

Fast forward to 2010 and the average gamer really needs no intelligence. Computers literally configure themselves, and games run (mostly) reliably. However, the fact that everyone has a PC means 2010 is the era of "games for the masses". That said, we get that type of game. F1 2010 is an example of some of this, but I don't think it's too bad of a game. Yes, it's a game, and all are, and it has its defects - many have been much worse - but I have accepted it and found it to be fun.

I just did a test and was able to go from double clicking on the F1 icon to green light in a race in 2:40. Far from 10 minutes, but I just did a Gran Prix and clicked all the way thru to see how fast. I do agree with the OP that this "life of a formula one driver" is just pure rubbish. I want to hit it and go. All the pro drivers are irrelevant and that's just an absurd form of pandering and ignorant entrainment.

On balance, the game has serious potential. The graphics are astounding, the quality of the racing experience is good, and there is a great selection of cars and tracks. I am skeptical that the modding community can turn it into what is its potential. I think the best we can hope to see are tweaks.

Derek

Great Post.... My Dad read this and said; that man knows what he's talking about!

[Ferox]

When I first played F1 2010, I thought I'd made a forty-dollar mistake. No feel in the FFB, sluggish car behaviour; I took a Williams around Singapore and couldn't get it to stop or turn for the life of me. A few hours later, with FFB tweaks and a new cockpit camera, I can actually feel what the fronts are doing... most of the time. It's not rFactor quality, but I can live with it.

That comment applies to most of F1 2010's simmish aspects, in my opinion. The driving model isn't 100% -- this isn't iRacing or FVA -- but it's close enough to encourage suspension of disbelief. If I want to pore over telemetry data to figure out how much fast bump my third-spring damper needs, I have rFactor. rFactor can simulate the nitty-gritty of setting up and driving an F1 car much better than F1 2010 (and VGP3 can do it even better). But rFactor falls down in almost every other aspect:tire management over a race weekend, AI racecraft, player involvement in vehicle development, dynamic weather and track conditions, progress of a championship season... what F1 2010 does that sets it apart from other racing sims is get consistently to 80% or 90% of "optimal" in every area I've encountered -- including the metagame of post-race interviews, team contracts, and so on.

I put my time into F1 2010 because it's an amazing piece of escapist wish-fulfillment entertainment. Your mileage may vary.

(And yes, the fact that you need a Games for Windows LIVE account to save your damn game is utterly infuriating.)

[lennesco]

Thanks for replies. This sim vs game issue might be better explained by the fact that Anthony Davidson was specifically taken on board by the developers to oversee the simulation aspects of F1 2010. It seems clear that his input was either not fully taken on board or perhaps something got lost during development.

In a sense all 4 wheel cars behave in a similar fashion....without wings. Too much power to the rear wheels results in oversteer and the front wheels will always understeer initially unless the geometry is tweaked to quite extremes. These very basic rules of physics should be the first priority, and rfactor broadly gets the "feel" of this very well. I get the feeling that F1 is built on inherent downforce rather than starting with the fundamentals of car physics on top of which wings and other downforce factors are imposed.

As I described in another thread, the clutch implementation is very poor, with the auto clutch kicking in too soon as rpm falls off in any gear. This is not helped by brake bias set slightly rearwards because even a light touch on the brake pedal locks up the rears then the clutch comes in, or if you move the bias forward the fronts lock too easily and you then plough straight on. This is with brakes set "low" but still the tiniest pressure still locks the wheels.

These very basic faults should have been spotted very early on in development. I don't think force feedback is a substitute for poor feedback from visual and other clues. GTL does the "feel" thing very well and so does Live for Speed and rfactor. These are now well established techniques for making this type of "game" give the user good clues about how the car is behaving. It is not difficult to achieve. But F1 fails in this regard.

No amount of eye candy will ever substitute for core weaknesses in the way any driving simulator functions. I will concede though that graphically there is some very fine work done.

[Jack_NL]

If you go online you dont get the PR girl etc
instead you get long loading times for the players when entering the online session

Its ridiculus when in offline mode we every time get the Reporter and PR girl drivel and your settings are not saved.

This is the first and last game I buy that needs a online account to go online and only then saves your settings etc. all this to prevent piracy? lol a pirate doesn't care, its free right?)

I dont like it to be a victim if some day their online service is canceled for whatever reason!

[Janis]

Originally Posted by DeeMoNay

I'm 43 and have been gaming on the PC since the days of the IBM 8088. I've seen hundreds of games come and go, few have stayed. Unfortunately, the collective and overall intelligence level of the "average gamer" isn't as high as it once was. I remember having to literally rebuild my systems just to get some obscure driver to work...DOS, IRQs, QEMM386, game patches ad nauseum...

I used qemm from 640k days too

To run nfsse featuring directx2 wooooo! lol in only 8mb of ram when minimum was 16mb.
If you loaded things high in qemm it left enough run it hires by a hundred KB or so . lol
an extra 8mb of ram would have cost over 400 dollars to run the game ( good saving)

Running a good gaming PC back then was a major accomplishment.

[redi]

Interesting and civil discusison up til now, although it's a major deja-vu

I think that even though Anthony Davidson was involved, it doesn't mean that the game was intended to be a sim (unless there's a specific simulation or hard-core mode in the game). As stated over and over again already, Codemasters wants to sell games, so they must offer what the masses want to see in such a game.

We poor sim racers try and find believable, true-to-life car behaviour in every race game that is published, even with games that are not intended for hardcore simmers. And with games from certain publishers we are sure to be disappointed every single time

All we need is GTR3 or rFactor2 to deliver the visuals of Dirt2/F1 2010/Shift with improved physics of their predecessors, and we'll be freed of these discussions

[logos]

@lennesco & Jack_NL

You need to create Games for Windows Live account to be able to save your profile data in game. Just search the net for "create GFWL offline account" or "GFWL account".

[Janis]

Originally Posted by redi

All we need is GTR3 or rFactor2 to deliver the visuals of Dirt2/F1 2010/Shift with improved physics of their predecessors, and we'll be freed of these discussions

I would hope you mean improved visuals as well.
The length of time between both should see a drastic improvement.

From a F1 perspective. ?
Will both of these have dynamic weather, night, F1 qualify, tyres, rules, etc 2011 models ? Korea, Singapore, etc . ?
Whats Silverstone going to be called this time? lol
Will the first F1 be converts of GP4 converts of F1 2010 ? rof

Modders and hardcore just want to bag it and pull it apart for anything it is worth, cars have already been done.

Why would Codemasters want to change their M.O. in that climate.
They make more off their "arcade" then simbin and isi combined.

No they will leave the real sims to those developers.

[lennesco]

Originally Posted by redi

Interesting and civil discusison up til now, although it's a major deja-vu

I think that even though Anthony Davidson was involved, it doesn't mean that the game was intended to be a sim (unless there's a specific simulation or hard-core mode in the game). As stated over and over again already, Codemasters wants to sell games, so they must offer what the masses want to see in such a game.

Yes, but perhaps Codemasters are assuming each time that the "masses" want an easy arcade game, whereas I think those who buy F1 will want more of a sim, whether they are "masses" or not. Of course the easy solution is to provide an "arcade" dumbed down mode, which is simple to do.

[Kazumi]

Originally Posted by Janis

No they will leave the real sims to those developers.

this

although i must say i'm looking forward to Dirt 3

[Janis]

Originally Posted by Kazumi

this

although i must say i'm looking forward to Dirt 3

Is that not the point ?

If Codemasters did build a ground up PC sim it comes up against strong
developers and a smaller market share, just makes no sense to take on
iracing, rF2, GTR3 and the likes.

If they made "arcadish" licenced series, like Lemans, Old BTCC, TransAm (and a much better V8 Supercar lol ) with visual quality / circuits redesign / modelling as F1 2010 even with the bugs they would all be winners.

[Ferox]

Originally Posted by lennesco

Yes, but perhaps Codemasters are assuming each time that the "masses" want an easy arcade game, whereas I think those who buy F1 will want more of a sim, whether they are "masses" or not. Of course the easy solution is to provide an "arcade" dumbed down mode, which is simple to do.

To be fair, F1 2010 is pretty simmish compared to, say, GRiD or Need For Speed. Folks like us are a few standard deviations right of the mean in terms of how much sim we like in our racing games.

[jaypot]

Originally Posted by leahcim

Although I don't rate the physics, the solution isn't changing grip and the cars in this game don't travel on rails. It's certainly a lot better than Grid (and not as far from most sims as people might kid themselves. Driving games are simply not like driving, not even like nipping to the shops in your car, they are just games and every game that's released you see the same rants and raves, I've written a few myself. At least give codemasters the credit for not pretending their game is "a sim" whatever that means. What we need to buy is a car. Drive the car when you want to drive and then find a game genre you actually like

This game is fun to play. With emphasis on the 2nd and 4th words.

amen to that brotha!

[Brainbug]

Originally Posted by redi

...All we need is GTR3 or rFactor2 to deliver the visuals of Dirt2/F1 2010/Shift with improved physics of their predecessors, and we'll be freed of these discussions

u forgot rbr. i would kill for that combo.

well, most things that was said here are 100% right. in this times a game has to work on pc and consoles, for sim-racers but even more for all kiddies that wanna race for 15 mins with the gamepad.

but hey, i´m pleased to be surprised with titles like ferrari virtual academy, coming nearly out-of-nowhere. (talking about "old" code in new clothes)

not to forget, that i can not remember times with such many racing-titles to be released, even when most of them are failures in the eyes of a sim-racer.

[resureksiyon]

Originally Posted by DeeMoNay

On balance, the game has serious potential. The graphics are astounding

I believe this is the real problem i have with F1'10 and Nfs Shift. These games look really believable, sound great and has "potential". I don't see anyone criticizing flatout or re-volt for not being anymore realistic or having this or having that. I think what makes people upset or annoyed is the fact that these games (shift, f1 2010, grid, dirt series) could have been made up to everyones standards at the first place, including the harcore sim guy. Looking how much effort has been given to making nfs shift "bearable" at first and then "enjoyable", i think developers of this game could make it a bit better with all their knowledge and the money they have been given. If codemasters would spend a bit more time when they were developing their EGO engine at the first place, all their games could have been great or at least better.

Going back to Gtr Evo after two or three months, made it easier for me to see what i actually love about real racing sims. Its not about graphics or how realistic it sounds, but the "feeling" it gives me. And the only source of feeling is the force feedback wheel at hand. With couple of small edits, you can tell if your car's understeering, or if its locked its front brakes. However you cant tell if its oversteering but thats another story. My conclusion about this matter is this; simbin and isi developed their software with wheel sets in their mind. Mainstream company aims at the bigger console market, and obviously game consoles comes with a joypad. And the biggest difference between mainstream devs and these niche studios is this i guess.

Back to topic, F1 2010 is the same story with GRID, nice graphics and no experience or feeling. Honestly i was not even expecting it to be "playable" but its there if i wanna toss around a race car. But if want to "drive" a car, my choice is gtr evo for now.

[Derek Speare]

Originally Posted by redi

All we need is GTR3 or rFactor2 to deliver the visuals of Dirt2/F1 2010/Shift with improved physics of their predecessors, and we'll be freed of these discussions

This is my precise feeling. If we can get the graphics of Drit2/F1/NFS Shift and user-scalable physics to true-to-life like in the "real sims", you'd have the holy grail/sacred cow game all have been wanting.

d

[Abujamra]

I'm quite under 43 but I played Microprose GP1 for 486 PCs. Despite its horrible graphics, it provided much more fun than Codecrappers.

Originally Posted by DeeMoNay

I'm 43 and have been gaming on the PC since the days of the IBM 8088. I've seen hundreds of games come and go, few have stayed. Unfortunately, the collective and overall intelligence level of the "average gamer" isn't as high as it once was. I remember having to literally rebuild my systems just to get some obscure driver to work...DOS, IRQs, QEMM386, game patches ad nauseum...

Fast forward to 2010 and the average gamer really needs no intelligence. Computers literally configure themselves, and games run (mostly) reliably. However, the fact that everyone has a PC means 2010 is the era of "games for the masses". That said, we get that type of game. F1 2010 is an example of some of this, but I don't think it's too bad of a game. Yes, it's a game, and all are, and it has its defects - many have been much worse - but I have accepted it and found it to be fun.

I just did a test and was able to go from double clicking on the F1 icon to green light in a race in 2:40. Far from 10 minutes, but I just did a Gran Prix and clicked all the way thru to see how fast. I do agree with the OP that this "life of a formula one driver" is just pure rubbish. I want to hit it and go. All the pro drivers are irrelevant and that's just an absurd form of pandering and ignorant entrainment.

On balance, the game has serious potential. The graphics are astounding, the quality of the racing experience is good, and there is a great selection of cars and tracks. I am skeptical that the modding community can turn it into what is its potential. I think the best we can hope to see are tweaks.

Derek

[leahcim]

Originally Posted by DeeMoNay

I'm 43 and have been gaming on the PC since the days of the IBM 8088. I've seen hundreds of games come and go, few have stayed. Unfortunately, the collective and overall intelligence level of the "average gamer" isn't as high as it once was. I remember having to literally rebuild my systems just to get some obscure driver to work...DOS, IRQs, QEMM386, game patches ad nauseum...

Oh please, get over yourself Do you think the Dell hired computer scientists to assemble PCs? Any buffoon can build and configure a PC whether it's running Linux, windows or DOS.

If you think that made you intelligent, all it actually did was show that you weren't really that computer literate at all. It's like saying "at school I had to do simultaneous equations but now they have calculators" the maths you did at school was trivial, and there are people 30 years your junior doing far more complicated maths. But no, obviously the world is now much dumber because you didn't have windows 7?

Where do you think windows 7 and F1 2010 come from? Outer space? Or do you think they are developed by pensioners? If only you'd been born before the electric light was invented, you might have been intelligent enough to light a candle, eh?

Installing and running DOS didn't make you more or less intelligent. This is the fallacy of "the trouble with people today"

Writing Dos might have done, but the truth is, PCs running Dos were fiddly, that's all. A good teenage programmer today could probably write his own version of DOS. Just like that same teenage programmer could probably write all the games that ran on an 8088 processor, by himself.

Torvalds showed that with his early versions of Linux (and many teenagers showed that by writing the 8088 games, as well as the zx81 games and so on)

It takes a lot more people (as well as a much more powerful computer) to write today's software, but the people that use software, whether dumb or not, are not much different than they ever were.

[Janis]

I dont agree I see hundreds of young people at IT College if anything they are dumber today. Most could not recite their specs if their lives depended on it.

I think you miss the point though, in the old days you learned or you just did not run certain games.

I knew many people went through life latest 5 grand shop tower with no sidebanding or interleaving set ( which you did have to program with software some chipset code manually testing over n over ) thats without the conflicts,
irqs, memory managers bats

So yeah it has got easier, less time consuming.

He was not inferring anything like what you suggest.

[redi]

Originally Posted by leahcim

... It's like saying "at school I had to do simultaneous equations but now they have calculators" the maths you did at school was trivial, and there are people 30 years your junior doing far more complicated maths.

You would have to back that up, because I don't see it with the school kids I know. I don't think school maths has become more complex in 30 years At school they're still learning the same things at the same age, simply because a teenage brain cannot comprehend more than it could when I was a teenager. Partial differential equations and stuff like that weren't invented recently, so if teenagers couldn't comprehend them 30 years ago they still can't understand them now. Hence, IF a teenager nowadays does "more complicated maths", chances are that he doesn't understand what he's doing but as long as the calculator gives some answer they're satisfied. The truth is that you learn a lot more from doing maths manually than through a calculator.

But we're digressing

Back to the discussion of the "average gamer's intellectual level", you do have a point. It's just that with today's computers and especially consoles, people don't NEED to be creative anymore to get things running. Their brains don't NEED to get into gear to run a game. But I'm sure they could do what we did with DOS computers if they needed to

Originally Posted by leahcim

...Writing Dos might have done, but the truth is, PCs running Dos were fiddly, that's all. A good teenage programmer today could probably write his own version of DOS. Just like that same teenage programmer could probably write all the games that ran on an 8088 processor, by himself...

Sure, and any teenager today can build a full-functional T-Ford from the stuff he finds in the bottom drawer of his desk, with his eyes closed and only using his teeth

Just as DeeMoNay may be devaluating today's generation's intellect a bit too much, you're just as well devaluating the skills needed to program certain ancient software. DOS and 8088 games may have been less complex than today's games, they still required knowledge, analytical thinking and clever routine writing to fit everything in a couple of 100K memory etc.

Undoubtedly many teenage programmers re-wrote simple 8088 games, but did they do it with the same tools that were available in the past? Or did they use some graphically-oriented library-packed higher-level programming environments?
Commodore 64 games were awfully simple, but people had to write them in machine code

[Shinzah]

Only on NG can we go from discussion the worse/finer points of a game, to the age of the gamer, to the good old days of retroputing.

By the way, if any decent teenage programmer can program 8088, DOS games, etc. How come theres no Elite 4 yet. And it doesen't fit on a 3.5 either. And probably never will.

[redi]

Originally Posted by Shinzah

Only on NG can we go from discussion the worse/finer points of a game, to the age of the gamer, to the good old days of retroputing.

By the way, if any decent teenage programmer can program 8088, DOS games, etc. How come theres no Elite 4 yet. And it doesen't fit on a 3.5 either. And probably never will.

Elite was the best, already Elite Plus or whatever it was called was not as much fun as the original.

Anyway, F1 2010 is not for simmers. Next topic!

[Damper]

Surely this is symptomatic of all modern consoles, computers and other devices - they are all designed to make us lazy. The 'do everything at the touch of a button' mentality will do nothing to further the educational standards of the masses. In fact it could be doing more harm than good. But there are youngsters who do want to understand what's going on under the bonnet and they are the ones who will learn advanced maths without the need for a calculator. Garbage-in garbage-out still holds true. I too started using computers in the 1970's, never used a monitor till the early 80's, and then learnt to love the command-line, well we had no option then did we. As with maths, there are youngsters who dig into the guts (software & hardware) of all kinds of modern devices to modify them and adapt them. But we don't all want to go to those lengths, so the push-button, icon-driven, modern world satisfies the majority of needs. Our reliance on the technology in everyday life is what worries me ! I am a strong believer in teaching the Ray Mears, sustainable, back to nature, skill set, to complement our technological driven learning.

Back in the day I was well impressed with 16-colour CGA hardware and code, wow! But I don't think the targets for game coders then were really any different to contemporary game designers. In fact I think they remain pretty much the same. The demands of the gaming audience are better understood now though, and the market, which is totally changed now, is largely driven by consumer demands.

So maybe that comes full-circle back to the contemporary 'push of a button' mentality of the players ? It's difficult to know if the larger, one might say, 'dumbed-down' masses who buy the games today have in fact driven the content, game play, down through the consumer demand feedback loop themselves. But no modern game studio is going to create anything that won't be attractive to as large an audience as possible - so that's driven by economics.

Anyway, I'm off to play with my abacus in the woods and hunt wild mushrooms. They don't move too fast so I'm in with a chance

[Shinzah]

My problem with this kind of 'lazy' age with games is that, frankly, games do not scale as well as hardware. Back in the day, you had to essentially fit a game into 100kb or less, while dealing with ram in the single kb range to maybe 32kb. But because now programmers have so much more headroom to work with, what with 3.5 million transistor gpus and cpus, quad and six core processors, and several gigs of ram, they have no need or want to super compress.

If games had scaled with the hardware, we'd have sims so ridiculously realistic that nations would ban them because of ptsd after huge wrecks. But programmers, they just want to make a pretty, increase the tick rate, throw some cars in, call it an "accessible live the dream driving experience" and off they go.

Don't forget games like Elite, that were tiny, but simulated an entire, procedurally generated newtonian GALAXY and you could fit three of them, onto one floppy disk.

[shinsou]

lol and then you have games that need 20gig of hdd and take 5 hours to finish.

[JDougNY]

Originally Posted by shinsou

lol and then you have games that need 20gig of hdd and take 5 hours to finish.

That seems to be the trend nowadays, I just went through a couple of games like that, recently...I started seeing the credits after 5-8hrs and was saying to myself, "Was that just the demo?...nooooo!..that was the full game!"