Racing Realism

Realism in videogames has been an important goal for quite some time now, the chance to replicate the real world an enticing prospect for developers across multiple genres. It is most prevalent, however, in the racing genre, with simulations and even arcade racing titles -- now selling themselves on things like their accessibility for real world tracks and cars, rather than presenting, say, a fictional experience like Mario Kart -- aspiring to be as realistic as possible. It’s an interesting thing to observe as companies like EA and Codemasters fight over who has the most realistic looking game or who can deliver the best handling physics, but it is even more interesting to contemplate, particularly as we have now reached a point where games are (or can be) so good that the hunt for realism may be redundant. To understand this, let’s take some time to look at how racing games are marketed, and what developers do during development to ensure authenticity.

On the development side, more and more these days the various racing game developers out there -- Codemasters, SimBin, Polyphony, Bizarre (RIP) and etc. -- will take the time to visit locations they may be using as settings for their tracks, taking thousands of photographs to ensure that every last detail can be replicated authentically. While they are all aware of how gameplay (IE: the racing) is the absolute most important thing -- and they are prepared to take liberties where necessary to ensure that -- the more realistic these locations can look in a game, the better they feel the final product will be. This is true to some extent: racing around the Nürburgring or Silverstone is great in theory, but it is not going to feel like you, the player, are doing so unless it looks like you expect it to, be that impression from something like TV footage or an actual visit yourself. This means ensuring all the corners appear to be angled correctly, reproducing the ‘flow’ of a circuit and correlating that with the image you might have of it in your head; that undulations and bumps are simulated as they exist in real life, lest your track feels flat and, by extension, dull; and making sure that buildings, pitlane and the general environment looks like it does at the real venue because, otherwise, you’re not racing at that track, are you? Such attention to detail coincides with some developers’ strong desire to make everything perfect, such as Polyphony, and the result is the highly competitive, high fidelity graphics push for (or towards) perfection that defines, in some respects, titles like Forza and Gran Turismo. But that’s appearance, just one aspect of the equation -- audio and, most importantly, feel are significant too, particularly if a game is purporting to be a simulation.

Real or in game? You decide.

The aforementioned developers also allocate time during development for “track days” or “recording days” to try and capture (both literally and figuratively) the realism of racing cars in real life, focusing on things like engine notes (sound) and oversteer (feel) in order to accurately reproduce these elements in the final product. On the sound side of things microphones will be attached to a variety of vehicles as they are being driven around a track, capturing the melody a car makes as it brakes for corners, accelerates out of them and even when they lose control or crash. A car’s engine sound is, obviously, the most important noise that has to be captured, but these sessions also record everything from the tyres to track ambiance and a car’s various clanks and clunks as it rides over bumps and bounces off of curbs. Cars will be also put on Dyno machines so an engine’s revs can be recorded at ranges that mightn’t necessarily be reached out on track, and so things like gear changes can also be reproduced as accurately as possible. A racing game just isn’t going to feel right if a Ferrari sounds like a Corvette (IE: using generic sounds because a budget doesn’t allow for the real ones to be captured) and, as such, this practice has become common for realistic racing games over the years. Less frequent amongst the industry is developers attending track days or visiting real world circuits in order to get a feel for how cars behave on a circuit, and to understand what needs to be included in a physics system to ensure that, once again, it feels ‘right’ once it is integrated in the final product. The big names -- again, Forza and Gran Turismo -- have done it for years because their reputation and consumer respect rides on the intricacies and subtleties their simulations can deliver, but it’s still somewhat rare for other developers to do it, and that’s a shame. This generation has seen that approach change, somewhat, and developers like Codemasters* are now making the effort to attend rally schools for a game like DiRT 3, to make sure that their product delivers on the expectations created by their players. You don’t want a rally game to feel like you are playing Grand Theft Auto, after all, so getting a feel for how a car behaves as it slides on mud and dirt is essential to the kind of experience you can ultimately deliver. You can portray the general idea, sure -- as games in the past have -- but it’s simply not the same as going out there, on track, and understanding how a car behaves as it takes chicanes and hairpins at speed. In other words, any racing title that doesn’t make the effort to record sound and car behaviour, and capture the essence of a circuit’s appearance through photography, is selling its customers short, and offering an inferior product when compared to the competition as a whole. But such attention to detail isn’t necessarily going to sell your game; there are, indeed, other methods too.

The first of these uses everything I have just described above. You need to demonstrate, to your customers, that you are serious about realism and authenticity, and the way to do that is to provide proof. This can be achieved by, for example, showcasing some of the photos taken at the locations visited or posting up an audio file of a car revving its engine, or you could go deeper and actually document your visit to the track with developer diaries. The entire medium is accustomed to developer diaries these days and the reason for that is because it’s a great way to highlight your intentions as a developer, explain what it is about your game that makes it worth buying and answer any questions that may be frequently asked. For racing games in particular, it is also a great opportunity to show that yes, you did actually visit a city or circuit. Footage of designers hooning around a track, sound producers capturing audio and your development team explaining what you’re doing at these venues can go a long way in conveying how important realism is for your product and it also becomes, in some instances, a selling point itself. Evidence of your attempts to ensure authenticity -- or in other words, practicing what you preach -- is a big coup for people who want the racing experience you purport to be making, because you are illustrating to them, directly, that you get it and understand what it takes to make a game like this. Taking the time to explain what you’re doing in detail can also grab the potential customers who don’t understand the science of racing but want to participate in a game that replicates what it is like to drive around Le Mans, or what it’s like to be in Formula 1. In other words, showing, not telling can be crucial to selling your product, and does a much better job than the other commonly seen practice: borrowing the names of famous drivers.

You'd be forgiven for thinking this is a real photograph.

Colin McRae (RIP), Mario Andretti, Ken Block -- these are all names that are synonymous with racing games, perhaps even more so than the sports in which they compete, and the licensing of these names can go a long way in selling a product. This is something that isn’t exclusive to videogames -- celebrities sell, it’s just the way it is -- but definitely suggests an authentic experience to those searching for one. If a racing driver is involved then, clearly, it must be realistic, right? Well no, money talks and no matter who you manage to obtain for an appearance in your game or, indeed, its title, it doesn’t mean a thing if the end product is poor. But the implication that comes with it is enough to make a game appealing to a wider variety of people and, generally, coincides with the effort I’ve described above. Enlisting a driver means enlisting their talents: getting them to test your game to see if it feels right or using their knowledge to improve accuracy drastically affects the game you are making in a positive way, and can be the difference between whether you nail it or fail it. It also means that you can capture details that your inexperience mightn’t have noticed, enhancing the overall experience even if the majority of its eventual players won’t pick up on them. This is the kind of stuff I’m referring to when I say, for example, that Forza 3 has more nuance than Gran Turismo 5, and while those two games don’t use real world drivers as a selling point, the information they can glean from people like Sebastian Vettel or Mika Salo certainly makes the difference. The combination of a real driver’s input and the data obtained at track visits can ensure that, yes, you do deliver on authenticity and realism, and demonstrating that you took the time to gather that information publically can guarantee stronger sales. That’s not to say that doing this can’t be deceiving -- some games do rely on a driver’s name or footage from a track day to sell a game even though the final product is still rather unrealistic -- but generally speaking if you take the time to do it, people will take the time to play your game.

Ultimately the push for realism has elevated the racing genre to levels that were unfathomable back in the PS1 era (for example), but that doesn’t mean the various racing games out there are perfect and there’s definitely a lot of progress yet to be made. Graphically, photorealism is practically already here so the graphics contest is beginning to slow down, but there’s still a lot that can be done with the way cars handle and how a track changes over time, so I look forward to a future where that level of realism can be parallel with fidelity and delivered confidently across the entire genre. In the meantime, what we have is already incredibly impressive and by writing about it here, I hope I have highlighted that because it is something, unfortunately, that is mostly overlooked. Happy racing.


*That’s not to say that Codies or anyone else hasn’t done it in the past, just that generally, such effort hasn’t been seen as being crucial to development and now developers are beginning to understand the impact such a practice can have on their games.

Behind The Wheel Of GT5: Racing Rivals

I’ve talked about how Gran Turismo 5 fares as a product and where it sits in its franchise; now let’s look at how it stands amongst its competition.

For years the Gran Turismo series was king of console racing simulation, sitting untouched at the throne for over a decade and remaining the pinnacle of graphical fidelity. Sure, there were imitators -- it’s quite similar to the GTA III open world issue, actually -- but Gran Turismo stayed on top due to its sheer quantity of cars and tracks, incredible production values and, most importantly, superior physics and handling model. Most copycats were content to cash in on this success -- it might not seem like it now with the likes of Call Of Duty and Uncharted around, but the Gran Turismo franchise is one of the biggest sellers in the industry -- or use it as foundation to go in a different direction, but GT’s presence on top was significant and defined the racing genre for years, much in the same way as Burnout did for Arcade racing. Microsoft’s increasing success and presence in the industry, however, brought with it a new challenger, one that in my eyes eventually overtook Gran Turismo for the lead.

There’s no denying that Forza Motorsport found success pretty quickly (after Forza 2 in particular) and soon became Gran Turismo’s main competitor. More significant, however, was just how serious of a rival Forza ended up being, and how, indirectly, it challenged not only GT but the entire genre to lift its game. Like previous attempts, the original Forza was mostly a copy of the PS2 generation Gran Turismos: GT3 and GT4. It took what worked from those games, added customisation, and focused on tire physics specifically rather than weight and momentum as I described in my last post. It had similar tracks -- including the obligatory New York street circuit and notorious Nürburgring Nordschleife (which I’ll cover in more detail soon) -- and a comparable range of vehicles; showcased a similar dedication and respect to cars and Motorsport to that of Polyphony’s franchise; and delivered on ideas of precision, consistency and accuracy just as Gran Turismo did. It was a competent game and a remarkable introduction to a new series, but it had nothing on its inspiration and, combined with various flaws, mostly underwhelmed the audience it was chasing. It was Forza Motorsport 2 and the transition into the HD generation of consoles that saw things change, and it is here where it passed Polyphony’s baby and took the chequered flag.

The reasons Forza 2 took the lead are simple to list but complex to understand. On paper we have improved graphics thanks to a generation change, a stronger emphasis on customisation and (importantly) community, and refinement in every facet of the production, making it an extremely well made game. Under the hood, however, we have the physics and handling engine which saw remarkable refinement and alterations that didn’t just deliver an improved level of control, but one with nuance and subtlety that, in hindsight, Gran Turismo was lacking. That’s not to say that GT’s achievements weren’t impressive or that it didn’t contain complexities to its own engine, but rather that its position on top for so long allowed Polyphony to become complacent with their handling model, so much so that only minor improvements were considered necessary. Forza 2 demonstrated what could be done and, crucially, why it should be, and the disparity between it and Gran Turismo 4 (the last game since Gran Turismo 5 was taking so long to develop) was so strong that it was almost unfair.

And it is unfair, for the most part, comparing a current generation game -- long since outclassed, yet again, by its sequel Forza 3 -- to one from the last generation, but on console racing simulation terms these two games were the only respectable ones and Polyphony’s pursuit for perfection allowed their competition to reach the top of the podium. The release of Gran Turismo 5, after years of delays and uncertainty, was supposed to be when the series retook first place and sat on that throne once again but, after playing it comprehensively, the Forza series still has it beat. Now this opinion is obviously mine and, I’ll quite happily admit, is debatable depending on how you approach the two: in terms of features, graphics (for the most part) and content Gran Turismo 5 is the clear leader as I described in my first post, but approach it from a driver’s perspective (so to speak) where the handling is crucial, and it’s another story. That nuance and subtlety I mentioned in Forza exists in Gran Turismo 5, too, which is commendable and pleasing to see, but it still lacks a lot of the small details -- the stuff most people wouldn’t notice -- that Forza has. I will do my best to articulate these and describe in detail why both Forza 3 and GT5 are what they are, but for now the level of depth that Forza 3’s physics/handling model has keeps it in front. There’s simply more that you can do with Forza’s system and now that Polyphony have indicated that they understand that (by including some of Turn 10’s innovation in their own game), it appears that it will take some refinement and the release of Gran Turismo 6 before the two will be on par, if it can’t retake its position as the leader altogether.

Move beyond the inevitable comparison between Gran Turismo and Forza -- preferably before the fanboys bring both games down with their immature insults and obvious ignorance -- and you find that other games have stepped up to the plate too, making the present day even more interesting and the past domination a relic of videogame history. Need For Speed: Shift, another mainstream and relatively popular title, delivers impressive graphics that match Gran Turismo 5’s beauty; Codemasters’ GRiD tapped into what it was like to race rather than drive (meaning techniques for executing passes and avoiding crashes mattered, rather than aiming for apexes and judicial use of the accelerator); and even a game like Race Pro -- one that definitely flew under the radar for most people -- matches the big two franchises when it comes to handling. I will explore all of these games (and many more) in future posts but the point is that while Gran Turismo might have been king for an incredibly long time, now it’s just another pawn fighting to get noticed and struggling to win, and Polyphony’s blissful ignorance of this fact makes Gran Turismo 5 even more disappointing than it needs to be.

It’s a fantastic game, I’ve already explained that, but it’s no longer the clear winner and has been surpassed by its rivals even though Polyphony (and Sony, for that matter) would suggest otherwise. What it brings to the table is wonderful -- if long overdue -- and it’s great to see that, for the most part, Gran Turismo 5 delivered on expectations, but in the time it took to do so everyone else ended up doing it first, ensuring that the title was left behind even though it thought it was ahead. As a fan of the franchise, that’s a little discouraging, but as an even bigger fan of genre competition (because it means I get to play more games), this result makes the race fascinating to watch, and even better to participate in.

Next time I will take a look at Gran Turismo 5’s licenses, break down the various features I’ve constantly made reference to in these recent posts, and also look at the handling system a little more closely. Before that, however, I turn my attention to Test Drive Unlimited 2, and how it fares in this incredibly competitive genre.

Behind The Wheel Of Gran Turismo 5: Product Placement

As I briefly alluded to in the overview to this series, Gran Turismo 5 can be approached in three different ways: as the latest installment in the franchise, as a game that competes with other racing properties, and as a product whose development has been long and arduous. Depending on these approaches the qualities and flaws change, as does the general impression one can derive from it, making GT5 not only a complicated beast but one that deserves analysis from all angles. Today, we focus on the product side of the equation.

As it stands, Gran Turismo 5 is a quality title. It brings the renowned franchise into the modern-day, high-definition era with lush visuals, features that were requested for years (weather, night racing, etc.) and even 3DTV support, given Sony’s recent push in that domain. Like previous entries in the series Gran Turismo 5 is at the forefront of technology and fidelity, pushing the PS3 like no other game and standing out as a culmination, of sorts, of everything Sony wanted to achieve with their black beast. Or, so Sony would have you believe.

In reality, Gran Turismo 5, while impressive, is also quite disappointing and it’s the features I refer to above -- the very things that get mentioned when trying to demonstrate GT5’s supposed superiority over its competition -- that make it so. There’s no denying that graphically, Gran Turismo 5 is beautiful, the cars and tracks shining (literally, in some cases) like never before, demonstrating the power of the PlayStation 3. Add in the weather effects, in-car camera view and day/night transitions and you have an awe-inspiring racing game that not only shows how far we have come, but why we should have made this progress to begin with. It’s not consistent, however, and the game can be quite ugly and jarring at times, too.

A good example of the jarring graphics. This WRC car looks good... until you notice the inside of the front wheel.

The obvious issue is the difference between the cars. Gran Turismo 5 has a wealth of cars that is arguably too many but respectful in the way it celebrates car engineering as I alluded to when discussing my games of 2010. Within its 1000-plus lineup exists what Polyphony call Standard and Premium vehicles. Premium cars come with all the bells and whistles, featuring immaculate replications of stunning cars such as Ferraris and Lamborghinis with meticulously detailed interiors, the ability to drive them using the in-car view, and more polygons than should be allowed for each car. There are about 200 of them, and they truly are a sight to behold. The Standard vehicles, on the other hand, are appallingly low-res and look, frankly, terrible. Their windows are tinted so interiors don’t have to be modeled; it’s impossible to drive them with the in-car view; and their shapes are nowhere near as smooth as the Premium selection, featuring jagged edges, blurry lines and a generally rough appearance. They scream Gran Turismo 4 fidelity rather than the pristine presentation of GT5, meaning that yes, they are essentially last generation cars. Considered separately the difference is irrelevant and, as a flaw, can be mostly overlooked, but every time you do an event in a Premium car and then need to switch to a Standard one, the contrast is jarring and the game jolts you back into reality, reminding you that you’re playing a videogame. Basically it’s the uncanny valley issue rearing its head again but instead of taking you out of the immersion of another game, here it just stuns you momentarily before you remember the pathetic difference between cars and resume racing. The contrast -- ugly as it is -- isn’t the problem here; instead, it stands out as inexcusable because of how long Gran Turismo 5 was in development, and because it is at such incredible odds with what the game and, indeed, the franchise has always tried to be: the pinnacle of graphical progress.

The cars aren’t the only area of the game where this discrepancy lies, however; tracks also contain jarring differences that are not only baffling, they impede on the enjoyment of the game. As gorgeous as the Madrid street circuit or the High Speed Ring are, it means nothing when tracks like the Top Gear Test Track, Laguna Seca and Circuit De La Sarthe (Le Mans) have flat, blurry textures, 2D ‘paper’ trees* and crowds with boxy heads and faces. Seeing the aforementioned Premium cars zoom around while the grass looks like it has been filled in using Microsoft Paint is not only an insult to the game’s credibility and Sony/Polyphony’s strong focus on leading the way with technology, it strongly affects enjoyment of the game seeing what feels like something from the PlayStation 2 era featuring so prominently on the PS3. When you consider that the Top Gear track in particular gets showcased on the game’s main menu screen sporadically, it’s simply inexplicable. Had Gran Turismo 5 released when it was originally supposed to way back in 2007 or even in 2008, the problem wouldn’t be as apparent and it wouldn’t be such a scar on an otherwise pleasant racing experience. Since it came out in (late) 2010 instead, after so many other racing games upped the ante and matched -- if not outclassed -- the GT franchise visually, the issue is appalling and a severe letdown to those who were expecting it to, like every other installment in the franchise before it, once again lead the way and pioneer, pushing the graphical -- not to mention photo-realistic -- limits possible in the virtual space.

Changing focus now, the aspects that were heavily marketed are a letdown as well. As nice as it is to finally have inclusions such as damage and weather, it’s beside the point if they’re not executed well or come across as if their implementation was rushed. Strangely, damage doesn’t even exist until you’ve reached a certain level (40, to be precise) in the game meaning that only the dedicated are going to get to experience the addition, despite the incessant requests for it to be included over the years. Casual players and those who just want to drive some exquisite cars around some lovely locations won’t get to see the damage modeling the way it was intended -- where bumpers and the like can come off -- and instead will only get to see the unrealistic (and, it has to be said, jarring given the otherwise impressive visuals) bounces and bumps -- with no visible affect to the presentation of the car -- that the Gran Turismo series is synonymous with. They might, if they’re lucky, start to see some scrapes and scratches if they make it past level 10 or so but, like the entirety of the damage model anyway, it will remain cosmetic at best and doesn’t change the experience of playing the game. Speaking of which, this superficial damage -- one of the biggest touted features in the lead up to the game’s release -- isn’t even the best we’ve seen in the genre, once again disappointing anyone who expected it to live up to its predecessors’ prestige. Weather and night racing were the other big elements celebrated before launch, the suggestion being that they were new to the series and included to satisfy those wanting them ever since Gran Turismo 4. They’re not new, however, with night racing existing in every single installment since the original game in the Super Special Stage courses, and wet roads (read: no dynamic weather, that is new) also appearing along the way as well. What this means is that the former is false advertising -- though admittedly, racing as day transitions to night is new and absolutely stunning too -- in terms of how its implementation was implied, and the latter already catered to the difference wet driving can have on the gameplay experience, people (and seemingly Sony too) have just appeared to have forgotten about it. So that makes both features not new, then, though to their credit they are what they should have been from the get-go, alleviating some of the issues that this attempt at marketing arose. That doesn’t make them perfect, however, with night’s appearance looking blurry at times -- particularly while watching replays -- and rainfall being 2D like the trees, not to mention inconsistent (in terms of density) with what you see fall on the windscreen in the in-car view, or the water spray from the tires as a vehicle passes. It’s minor and, personally, I’d much prefer the idea that these additions were finally implemented than for them to be perfect, but it’s worth mentioning anyway, especially considering Sony and Polyphony’s strong focus on trying to be at the forefront of fidelity and innovation. Other games have done it better but they don’t want you to realise it.

Beyond that, elements of the game’s handling physics (which I will explore in a future post); the omission of classic tracks such as El Capitan, Seattle and New York; and archaic problems such as invisible walls (particularly on the Top Gear track) make for a confusing product, one that is so inherently amazing whilst, at the same time, a disappointing and lackluster experience. Gran Turismo 5 is undoubtedly the best game in the series but its flaws are bizarre, its handful of last generation (or worse, beyond) design choices are baffling, and, overall, as a product released in 2010, it’s a game that’s not only a letdown, it’s an inexplicable disappointment.

Why that is remains to be seen; why the game is so good is something I’ll reveal in the next post of this series.


*To be fair, Gran Turismo 5 isn’t the only game to feature 2D ‘paper’ trees. They can be found in its main competitor Forza 3, as well as in games such as Alan Wake. No matter which game they exist in, I always shudder when I find them as it certainly breaks the immersion during play.

Behind The Wheel Series: Overview

It’s no secret by now that I am a racing game fanatic and play practically any racing game I can get my hands on. Whether it’s a simulation like F1 2010 or an arcade racer like Burnout, I play these games because I enjoy them and because they satisfy my appetite for speed. Even a bout of Mario Kart is worth the drive, in my opinion. It’s also no secret, however, that I believe that the genre as a whole doesn’t get the critical attention that it deserves, seemingly acting as a fun diversion for the majority of players while the big-name shooters and RPGs of the world get all the attention. This bothers me, as I’ve expressed before, and part of my motivations for Raptured Reality these days is to try and change that perception and give the genre the investigation, analysis and dedication that it deserves. Enter my newest series, Behind The Wheel, in which I’ll discuss racing games thoroughly, and where (almost) anything goes.

I’ve played around with the idea of writing in depth about racing games before, approaching it from a variety of angles but not really finding one that meets the desires I have when it comes to covering the genre critically. My Friday Night Forza series lasted only two posts because I felt like it focused on one game far too much, and wasn’t really discussing the actual game in any analytical sense. What I did cover in those two articles, however, was important because they highlighted how racing games can go beyond the simple act of going fast and become so much more, teaching players, indirectly, experiences that they might not have been aware of previously. My F1 2010 Living The Life series, on the other hand, demonstrates the genre’s potential to -- again -- go beyond the act of going fast and tell stories, even if those stories are created out of a particular approach to playing. I’m proud of a lot of what I have written in the three years I have been blogging here -- stuff like my Heavy Rain and Fahrenheit coverage comes to mind -- but I can say with confidence that the Living The Life series is the best thing I’ve ever done, not necessarily due to its content but because of how it enlightened me to so many things that I was oblivious to. From the aforementioned storytelling to the emotions playing it in that way has inspired in me, the approach has been invigorating and I hope to use that experience to enhance not only other games in the future, but possibly other aspects of my life as well.

But it’s not criticism, is it? Playing F1 2010 with an intentional “I’m the driver, here’s how my races fared” approach isn’t taking the actual game, analyzing it, and discovering why it’s so good, what flaws it has and where it should go in the future. Talking about driver mentalities or hard to describe phenomena in relation to a simulation like Forza Motorsport 3 isn’t breaking that game down, investigating what it does and doesn’t do within the franchise it exists in, or the competition it aims to overthrow. Hell, even answering the question as to what my favourite racing game ever may be isn’t doing anything substantial other than offering my opinion and explaining why. This annoys me because it goes against my intentions for covering the genre here on the blog: it’s not discussing them in depth and offering a perspective that others cannot, because they don’t have the same experience with the genre as I do. It’s fine to experiment the way I have in the past if it’s alongside these genuine criticisms and analysis of individual racing games, but if doing one is to the exclusion of the other then I am doing it wrong (so to speak) and this is something I’d like to change.

So that’s what this new series is about. Instead of experimentations that could go anywhere or discussion on subjects that mean little to anyone other than me, I’ll actually be focusing on games like Gran Turismo 5, Wipeout HD, Blur (etc.) to understand them and explain, to you guys, why they are what they are and why I find them so enjoyable (or not). I’ll still continue to experiment as I find ways to articulate the many thoughts I have about the genre, but it will be tangential to the criticism and analysis and, hopefully, enhance the discussion rather than control it. I will also continue my F1 2010 story because, as I said before, I find it fascinating and want to relay that to you, but I will also analyse the game so it is clear as to why I love it so much, and why it has enabled me to tell my story to begin with.

First, however, I’m going to turn my attention towards Gran Turismo 5 -- a controversial and inconsistent racing game -- and the recently released Test Drive Unlimited 2, as a nice (and intentional) contrast of styles within the racing genre. Join me again tomorrow for the first of these posts, looking at where GT5 stands as a product (as opposed to a simulation, or to its competition).

Friday Night Forza: Tunnel Vision

In my last post I referenced an approach to driving around a race circuit that I labeled as “Tunnel Vision”, suggesting that it appears when a driver’s concentration is at its highest, usually in relation to an attempt to be as precise around the race track as possible -- so in other words, all the time.

So what is Tunnel Vision?

Tunnel Vision is the term I use to describe when concentration and focus is so high that only what is in front of a driver at the time matters, and only the crucial details -- an opponent’s car; the approach to an upcoming corner; whether there’s any debris on the track; stuff like that -- matter. It’s when the objects in the background and sidelines become a blur, and when the edges of the track or its walls are the only important things that surround a driver and his or her car. Like a tunnel on civilian roads, the view and momentum is funneled forward: there’s no turning right or left as that’s when mistakes or collisions can be made, and going backwards is against the rules of the road or, indeed, the race track. When concentration is at its peak and focus is strong, the track or even minutiae parts of it, such as the racing line, becomes like a tunnel: attention is on what is ahead and what’s on the sides or behind doesn’t matter.

Interestingly, this Tunnel Vision phenomenon doesn’t just apply to the edges of a circuit or, in the case of a street circuit, the walls that line the course. Upon hearing my description for Tunnel Vision, it would be easy to associate and assume that it is the edges of a track I’m talking about. This is true to some degree, but as I’ve already alluded to above, things within those edges can form and be a part of one’s Tunnel Vision. The first obvious one is the racing line: the general and quickest line through each of the track’s corners and the most commonly used, by all drivers, route throughout a course on any given lap. Venture off this line and a multitude of things can arise or affect your race, maybe even both. The level of grip might not be as strong, meaning you become slower as your tyres work harder; leftover rubber from tyres -- commonly known as “marbles” -- can adorn the edges of a racing line and make the handling of your vehicle more slippery; or your approach to a corner may be more difficult because you’re not lined up to take it as fast as possible and thus, your general lap speed slows down as you do to accommodate. It’s logical then to try and stay on this line as much as possible in order to maintain consistency in pace per lap, as well as to ensure that, in a race, opponents have a harder time overtaking you. I’ll talk about overtaking, especially as it relates to racing games, in a future post.

Tunnel Vision: You're doing it wrong.

But sometimes, Tunnel Vision can go beyond the edges of a race track or its racing line. It can narrow or widen at will, based on what’s ahead at the time and how a driver responds to it. For example: when trying to line up a pass on an opponent, the edges of a driver’s Tunnel Vision can alter based on what that rival is doing. If they choose to stick to the racing line heading into a corner, then suddenly the Tunnel Vision can widen beyond the racing line as a passing opportunity up the inside arises. Instead of being single file on the racing line, the track becomes wider as the cars go side-by-side, maybe to the edges of the track, maybe to some point in-between that’s suitable enough to make the move and nothing more. Of course, that doesn’t always mean the pass is going to be successful but alas, I digress.

How does this relate to racing games and in particular, Forza 3? Well just as these games simulate the various mentalities that can arise effectively, they also simulate Tunnel Vision. As I suggested in my previous post, if my attention is not fully dedicated to the racing line, the clock, or both, then I’m not at the peak of my potential ability as a driver and I’m allowing distractions, such as the paraphernalia that adorns the background and sidelines of the circuit, to set in and affect my chances in achieving my goal. It is a small aspect of racing but one that is absolutely crucial to my -- and presumably everyone else’s -- success. Get it wrong and the desired result -- winning, pole position, etc. -- is a lot more complicated to achieve, but get it right and the result is, well, perfection.

Friday Night Forza: Driver Mentalities

In terms of simulation the physics of the driving models in racing games like Forza Motorsport or Race Pro are usually what receives the attention critically, and for good reason too; If the physics and dynamics of racing a car quickly around a race track do not feel right -- regardless of whether it’s a controller or steering wheel being used -- then the illusion is broken and the experience becomes less enjoyable. Or worse, dull. Get it right, however, and it can be an exhilarating, fulfilling experience that is probably as close to real life racing as one can get in a virtual sense. But just because handling is the main focus that doesn’t mean that there aren’t other aspects of racing that are being simulated simultaneously.

Driving a race car consistently, precisely and most importantly, quickly, is an incredibly complex and involving task. Not only do drivers in real life need to manage the physical side -- acceleration, braking, gear changing and, of course, steering* -- they also have to manage racing mentally, and it’s here where racing sims do a pretty remarkable job of capturing the mental processes a driver has to go through not just throughout a race but in preparation for one as well.

Most real life race weekends follow a schedule that allows for drivers to learn the track; test various car setups that suit not only the track but its conditions as well (sunny, overcast, rainy, etc.); secure their position on the starting grid; and then, eventually, the race. The thought process in the approach to each session -- practice, qualifying or the race -- differs based on the performance of the car, the goals the driver or team may have, and the experience with how the track may or may not change over the course of the weekend. In practice for example, the mindset is relatively relaxed and it’s here where experimentation with setup, different racing lines and when to be on the track versus being in the pits can be used to potentially improve the prospects for the overall weekend. In qualifying, the mindset shifts to one lap dashes (usually involving three laps: the out/warm up lap, the actual lap where a decent time is hopefully set, and the in lap on the way back to the pits) where concentration, focus and absolute precision is necessary to set and achieve the best lap time. Arguably, it’s here where the track really does become like a tunnel, the driver’s vision not focused on anything else except what’s in front at the time. I’ll explain this “tunnel vision” phenomenon in a little more detail in my next post. Lastly we have the actual race, where the mindset once again shifts and all eyes point towards a victory. Concentration isn’t necessarily focused on precision -- though it helps -- with the location of competitor vehicles being important, and avoiding any collisions is crucial.

Something that both surprised and impressed me while playing Forza Motorsport 3 is just how amazingly realistic it is in recreating the various mindsets a driver has. Of course, to speed up the process and not alienate the more impatient audience of gamers out there, the way race events are presented in these games is significantly different to the way a normal race weekend pans out, but this is mostly irrelevant. Instead of practice sessions or qualifying, racing games have testing (for the tuners out there) and time trial modes, not to mention quick races or free runs. It’s in these modes that the varying mental approaches appear, and in reality it doesn’t matter what a mode or session is called because the end result is going to be the same thing.

I’m a fairly passionate person about time trial modes, as I enjoy the challenge in being as precise and perfect as I possibly can. As far as Forza 3 is concerned, I have a goal in mind to be in the top 200 people around the world for each specific time trial event, and, if possible, the various hot lap leaderboards as well. It’s a big ask but based on my experience with Forza 2, it’s entirely possible and I’ve already got a few decent times down. When I’m on the track pushing to be as perfect as I can be, my mind is focused entirely on precision, and getting the best out of the track and car I’m in. My focus is literally that of the tunnel vision I’ve already alluded to, and the side and background detail of a track -- including the walls if it’s a street circuit -- is ignored without even realising it. It’s just me, the racing line, and the clock, and if anything else enters into my concentration span then I’m not at the peak of my potential ability. This is a big contrast to how I approach a race, where, as in all racing games, all I care about is winning -- both for the progression throughout a game and because that is the ultimate position. Failure to win means restarting or retrying a race until that victory is secured, and anything else is just trivial distraction until that is achieved. This changes again when it comes to approaching, say, an online race against real people (as opposed to AI); the desire to win remains as strong as ever but the variables are different, so the approach needs to be. Racing against the AI cars is serviceable but mostly predictable: assuming how they will react as I make a pass or block my line into a corner results in relatively easy outcomes with very few surprises. Racing real people, on the other hand, is unpredictable: the lines that they take, how deep (or early) they will brake into a corner or whether they will try to ram you as you make a pass are just some of the unknown factors against real people. This unpredictability can make online racing really exciting, but also has more potential for collisions, unfair competitors and less of a chance to actually win. The differences in the various approaches I take depending on what I do in the game is remarkable, and extremely similar to how a real race driver would adapt to the conditions they may have to face.

Exit Strategy

At any given time on the track, a driver’s thought process can be focused on a multitude of things depending on the circumstances they find themselves in. Ranging from how they took the previous corner to whether they are close enough to an opponent’s car to make a pass, decisions are constantly being made based on what is being presented at the time. It’s no different in a racing simulation game.

I may not realise it while playing, but I too am making decision after decision as I make my way around a track, and as you’d expect, the choices I make will either help or hinder the outcome of my race. For example, exiting the final corner of America’s famous race track Laguna Seca can present many different situations to deal with. As I exit, I could be thinking about my throttle application because I may have gone wide (off the racing line); started to accelerate too early (thus inducing wheel spin); or because I’m trying to get the best exit possible. This latter point can be for two reasons: to end a fast lap as precisely and as quickly as I possibly can, in order to obtain a decent lap time, or, to get the best run down the short straight as I can in order to hopefully make a pass heading into turn one. This second situation gives yet more possibilities: am I close enough to my opponent’s car to slipstream him? What about close enough to brake later than him into the first corner? Or do I need to patiently bide my time, because I’m not close enough, and wait for another opportunity to pass? While thinking about these potential scenarios and what to do with them, I also have to be mindful of what my opponents are doing, too. They could be aggressive and therefore hard to pass; they might not see me alongside them heading towards the corner and so when they turn into it like normal, they cause a collision; or they could be slow -- either because they had a poor exit from the corner or because there’s something wrong with their car -- meaning I have to be careful not to ram into the back of them because I’m going faster.

These are just some of the potential situations that can occur leaving the final corner of Laguna Seca. There are plenty more, and that increases exponentially once you consider the rest of the corners -- including the famous Corkscrew -- that make up the Californian track. And that was just one example! The mental prowess required to not only race quickly but competitively and precisely is amazing, and now that I have noticed it I am impressed by just how well racing simulation games manage to replicate that complexity yet still maintain the fun factor videogames are usually known for. The intriguing thing though is that despite all of this, motorsport is mostly a reactionary sport which relies on reflex and quick thinking as opposed to careful consideration and planning. You can strategise for a race as much as you want but at the end of the day, once you’re out on the track and the light has gone green, it’s just you, your opponents, and the path to victory -- it’s up to you to deal with whatever comes your way, and it will always be the drivers who are best at doing this that will come out on top.

*A lot of people assume motorsport is just a hand-based sport but it is as much a foot skill as it is a hand skill.

Friday Night Forza: Overview

I love Forza Motorsport 3. The latest in a franchise I’ve played since inception, the game is the culmination of years of dedicated and hard work by developers Turn 10 to create not just a product capable of going up against (and, in some people’s eyes, beating) well-established rival Gran Turismo, but also one that explains, enhances and allows players to experience car and Motorsport culture and the passion that is born from it. From a pure videogame point of view, it wasn’t hyperbole when the word definitive was thrown around by both Turn 10 and Microsoft in the lead up to its release: Forza 3 doesn’t just iterate on its previous versions, it takes everything they learned from the previous two games -- but particularly Forza 2 -- and delivers the package that, in hindsight, some might say the original game on the Xbox should have been. Whether it’s racing on the track, tuning or painting, every aspect of Forza 3 isn’t just a polished piece of work that could be in their own separate games; they also exist as a significant factor in creating the Forza Motorsport experience. If LittleBigPlanet has "Play, Create and Share", then Forza’s racing, tuning and painting combine to form a community whose strength doesn’t just rival that of Sony’s effervescent and utterly charming franchise, it eclipses it. Why? Because a love of cars can be shared by all sorts of people, and car culture is global.

As you can see, I love Forza Motorsport 3 but more than that, I love the franchise and the genre that it exists in. As a Motorsport enthusiast in the real world, Forza allows me to drive real cars on race tracks in a realistic manner, enhancing an enjoyment of a sport I already love as well as fostering my passion for it by providing an understanding of what it’s like to not just drive cars, but to do it at speed and as precisely as possible. At the end of the day it may just be a simulation, and I may use the controller the majority of the time, but regardless of its input systems and approach to racing games and racing in real life, Forza clues me into a lot more than I think some people -- who aren’t necessarily in my position -- may realise. Basically, the depth Forza has as a game and franchise -- and let me be clear right now, Gran Turismo shares this complexity -- alone is astounding, but when you consider its ability to provide insight into racing in real life as well, well that is nothing short of exceptional. That’s why it is my equivalent to the annual iterations sport games receive; it’s why Forza 3 is my RPG where statistics are pored over, main quests and individual quests are undertaken, leveling up and character progression occurs and ultimately a narrative is told; and it’s my first-person shooter, where I don’t just get to test out my skills, I also must practice my precision, my aim, my reactions, and decide the best time to fire out of every corner. Winning a race is the equivalent to a team winning an intense, competitive multiplayer match, whilst achieving a perfect lap time is my very own version of a headshot.

So, with that in mind I welcome you to my weekly (yes, you read that right: weekly) column about Forza 3, in which I’ll cover everything from personal opinions on the game to analysis of the game’s tracks, modes, and just the game in general. I cannot emphasise enough just how many different areas I could explore with this game and so, as a demonstration of my love and respect for it, writing about all of these things will allow me to describe to you not just why I feel the game is amazing, but the intricacies of both it and the culture it resides in. Videogame elements or real life racing techniques -- it can all be covered in this series. I might even be able to record some footage of the game too in order to demonstrate the points I make or to show you what I might be referring to, so while I admit this series will be an experimentation of sorts, it will also be a varied bunch of subjects that I hope -- even if you have no interest in cars, racing games or Motorsport -- will interest you. And if, by chance, I run out of things to say about Forza Motorsport 3, then I can use this column to discuss the racing game genre -- or franchises within it -- instead, so there should be no reason for this regular addition to the blog to run out of content.

It begins next Friday with a look at driving mentality whilst on the racetrack, a subject that doesn’t just apply to racing in the game but also racing in reality. Hope to see you then.

Games Of The Year 2009: Forza Motorsport 3

[My apologies for the slight delay with this one. An unexpected interstate trip meant I had little time to get online. Thank you for your patience.]

I suppose it's no surprise for anyone who has been reading this blog for a while to see this game as one of my choices. In the short time that I have been blogging about videogames, I have intentionally tried to establish myself as someone willing to give the racing genre a more critical eye. For whatever reason, the genre doesn't garner the amount of attention or discussion that others do, despite the fact that it is one of the more prolific (in terms of releases) genres out there and generally one that people play for fun when they have a break from the next big FPS, RPG or blockbuster title. It's like the sports genre -- no surprise considering that, depending on which game you're talking about, racing is a sport -- in that, a huge amount of people play these games but rarely do they ever speak about them. It's a little puzzling to me as I've discussed here before -- Surely these games are just as ripe for discussion and analysis as your BioShocks and Fallouts? Apparently not... so far at least.

Anyway, Forza Motorsport 3 is quite simply the best installment in the franchise yet, iterating on everything the previous two games did whilst adding enough new features to not only justify the sequel, but open it up to more players as well. The biggest selling point for the game is how accessible it is now: despite being a simulation racing game at its heart, there's enough driving aids, options and mechanics (such as the rewind feature) to allow players of any skill level to enjoy Forza Motorsport 3. Such additions might be irrelevant to people like me, hardcore racing enthusiasts who eat these types of games for breakfast, but in terms of mass appeal they're worthy additions and as such, are notable inclusions to the formula. Some new and welcome tracks, the obligatory graphical upgrade, refinement of the game's already superb handling physics system and a fostering of a passion for car culture through its online community, tuning and painting options are just added bonuses for a game and franchise that has established itself as one of the best simulation experiences available on consoles. Whether it's the definitive racer -- the description overused throughout the pre-release hyperbole -- on consoles is up to you, but it certainly is the most comprehensive one. Car enthusiasts the world over can't wish for much more than that.

I'll have much more detailed thoughts and discussion on Forza Motorsport 3 soon.