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 GT5: Grand Tour

In yesterday’s post I claimed, without hesitation, that Gran Turismo 5 is the best game in the series. The reason for that, on a personal level, is its much improved handling and physics model but go beyond my interests and you find a feature-rich, mostly beautiful and thrilling racing game.

Since I’ve already mentioned it, I’ll start with the physics. The Gran Turismo series simulates the act of driving cars fast through, mostly, weight distribution. Where a game like Forza focuses on tires and the way grip affects the car, GT focuses on how the bulk of a car’s body and chassis affects speed, and how G-forces and the lurch forward under brakes affects momentum. This key difference, and Forza’s impressive evolution in its recent titles, almost separates the two rival franchises into completely different categories but, more than that, it provides interesting insight into car behaviour -- in the real world and virtually -- that I’d like to explore in detail later. For now, however, Gran Turismo 5’s additions to the handling and physics system ensures that it’s not only the most refined of the franchise, but that it also allows for more subtlety and a stronger level of depth: crucial for conveying the intricacies that driving a car around a track, at speed, reveal.

This is perhaps most evident in the game’s wide array of cars. Gran Turismo as a series is renowned for its car selection, perhaps even going over-board with its multiple Skylines, RX-7s and -- in this version (finally!) -- Ferraris. But, unlike previous installments, the difference with these vehicles is actually noticeable, and getting acquainted with each car actually requires time and effort. Drivetrains matter, for example, and it’s no longer a case of front-wheel drive cars under-steering and rear-wheel drive cars over-steering. You can actually feel the car responding -- or not -- to your input and can recognise, instantly, when you need to react to it veering off track or why it’s not putting the acceleration down. Now I won’t deny that in my experience of playing racing games over the years and my understanding of Motorsport, I can recognise the traits and issues that the average player -- the kind who goes for a burn around Laguna Seca on the weekends simply because it’s fun -- might not, but the fact that the refinement and difference is there goes a long way in improving the simulation as a whole, not to mention, indirectly, teaching its players the finer techniques and understanding that racing cars requires. Throw in the diversity of NASCAR, rallying and Go-Karts, and consider how drastically different those disciplines are, and you have a system that’s not only impressive, it’s a robust, technical feat. I’ll be honest and say that I still think Forza has it beat in this department -- and I’ll explain why in a future post -- but that Gran Turismo stepped up is wonderful, especially when it was so close to being left behind.

Going beyond the mechanics Gran Turismo 5 features an insane amount of content, far more than what is expected from the first installment in a generation -- and perhaps only, given the lengthy development time -- that it’s amazing that it works at all, let alone came out as polished (if inconsistent) as it did. Instead of waiting for the second release in a generation like it has previously to offer more cars and things to do, Gran Turismo 5 hits the track with a number that outdoes the competition, if not its own-self. 1000+ cars out of the box; a multitude of tracks -- both real and fictional -- which includes their many variants; and a variety of modes, disciplines and features that were unthinkable in the last game, Gran Turismo 4. Rally returns, drifting is included for the first time (GT5: Prologue doesn’t count) and NASCAR, karting and even WRC (the World Rally Championship) finally get some of the attention that they deserve. It may only be a dabble here and a dabble there -- GT5’s main focus is still absolutely on the many road cars available -- but it’s a lot more than other games, and paves the way for an enticing future where all cars, all disciplines of racing across the Globe, can receive the respect and level of appreciation/admiration that this series prides itself on. Weather was added, damage included, and dynamic conditions and the transition from day to night and back again in the longer races make for a much more realistic simulation experience, as well as a more enthralling, immersive one. I’ll break these features down in an upcoming post but the fact they are there is remarkable -- even if flawed as I suggested yesterday -- and justifies, somewhat, the incredibly long development time Gran Turismo 5 had. This variety is important pedagogically, too, something I’ll expand on later.

Gran Turismo 5 isn’t perfect, however, and a wealth of content means nothing if their implementation is odd and confusing. Furthermore, the disparity between Premium and Standard cars visually, omission of classic Gran Turismo circuits and last generation design decisions make GT5 a game that, while brilliant, should have been better, too; particularly as its competition catches up, if they haven’t passed it already. More on that next time.

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).

Games Of The Year 2010 #1

I was flicking through an older issue of EDGE recently when it dawned on me that, despite only being just over a year old, 2009’s games feel like a long time ago and in some ways, from a different period. They aren’t, obviously, but I suppose it’s the sheer quantity of games that came out in the past year that leaves the impression that the likes of Left 4 Dead 2, Modern Warfare 2 and Uncharted 2 all came out ages ago. Right from the get go 2010 started with a bang, three games coming out that sought attention instantly -- perhaps due to the satisfaction that there were actually things to play after Christmas, instead of the usual dull period everyone is accustomed to. Bayonetta, Darksiders and Mass Effect 2 all came out in January, opening a year that, seemingly, had big-name titles in every single month that followed. It was an incredibly packed year -- we knew it would be as we approached it in 2009 -- and while a lot of titles were probably a let-down in the end, there’s no denying that the general quality we saw in 2010 didn’t just raise the bar for the medium as a whole, it exhibited a shift in the way games were perceived in general -- a step in the right direction. It gets said every time we see GOTY awards but I think it would be fair to say that 2010 was the best year for videogames yet, due to many reasons, so going forward it will be interesting to see how long it is until the bar is raised again. There seems to be a pattern where every three years or so the standard increases with 2001, 2004 and 2007 being sublime examples. Anyway, despite always hesitating with these things I’m here once again with my own nominations for last year’s best games. Unlike most other outlets however, I decide to go ahead with my picks for Games Of The Year because of two reasons: it highlights the games I’m interested in to you guys, allowing you to get to know me a little better; and it lets me explain why I’d like certain elements of these games to be pursued in the future, for better or for worse. It’s an approach that I find interesting simply because I can revisit my thoughts at any time and see if other developers have taken on board some of the great things that were demonstrated in 2010’s games, and it is one that I hope you will enjoy as well. Last year I celebrated Forza 3’s comprehensive dedication to car culture; Uncharted 2’s creation of characters that seemed like friends or companions rather than AI constructs; and Flower’s wonderful, serene combination of emotion, wonder and discovery. This year, I have even more games to look at, starting with the first handful below.

Mass Effect 2

Of all the games I had to pass up on last year -- including titles that were important to me such as Metroid: Other M and Mafia II -- Mass Effect 2 was the one that I deeply regretted. I loved the first game but for some reason forgot just how much, meaning I was interested in the sequel but believed I could ignore it -- a big mistake. I knew ME2 was a quality game due to the critical and commercial acclaim it received, but I still felt comfortable casting it aside until hype started to surround the release of the PS3 version. I played the game’s demo and was instantly reminded of a world that is exactly my kind of thing: a game set in space featuring cool planets, aliens and science fiction. Suddenly, I had Mass Effect fever and since I did actually own the game thanks to a friend who purchased it on my behalf, I immediately requested that he send it to me so I could finally play it. I wasn’t disappointed.

Where the original Mass Effect introduced us to the universe of this new and wonderful franchise, allowing us to learn about its species, planets, politics and personality, Mass Effect 2 allowed us to finally inhabit it. This distinction is small in comparison to the refinement and iteration the game received -- particularly in its mechanics -- but is still crucial in explaining why Mass Effect 2 is so damn compelling. By letting us exist within the universe rather than merely see and hear it, the game does what so many other recent titles have done so well: take us to places we can’t physically visit in reality. When you boil it down the world of BioWare’s space opera is nothing but an illusion -- just as every other game is -- and its characters, locations and general fiction don’t exist, but when you play Mass Effect 2 you truly feel like you’re traversing the galaxy, interacting with these still new and foreign -- but now wonderfully familiar -- species and ultimately learning about a universe that is not only worlds apart (literally) from Earth, but is characterized by a scope and scale that humanity’s home planet just cannot compare to. In the end it may just be a game, but the way in which it puts us in a setting that we’ve only seen and heard of before makes it one of 2010’s best, if not one of the best ever. Incidentally, I'll have more in depth coverage of BioWare's two games in the near future.

Red Dead Redemption

This belongs on the list for so many reasons that have already been discussed elsewhere and, of all the games to have come out in the past year, is easily the one that stands out the most. However, despite its amazing quality it didn’t make as much of an impact on me as I was perhaps expecting and as such, it doesn’t compare to some of the other games you’ll find in my choices. My overall impression of the game could be hindered by the way in which I always feel like I am fighting to enjoy it -- mostly due to outside elements such as a massive spoiler which turned me off the game for a while and my inexperience with the Western genre -- but, whatever the cause, it’s worth mentioning here.

Having said that, I have thoroughly enjoyed Rockstar’s latest and still find surprising new things each time I play, so it’s definitely deserving of a nod here as well as the adoration and respect it’s receiving elsewhere. Red Dead Redemption, I think it would be fair to say, blew everyone away in terms of how effectively it translated a common genre from another medium into our very own, its production values and ability to capture the Western feel being unparalleled in the industry. If anyone was going to achieve such a feat though it was going to be Rockstar, so while its extreme quality was a surprise, the achievement is not. What is a surprise is just how real it all feels while playing. Like Mass Effect 2 the best thing about RDR for me is its ability to not just show us a Western game, but to put us in one and allow us to experience what that is actually like. We’re not observing as John Marston hunts, rides into the sunset or pursues Bill Williamson, we are doing those things and, no doubt, having an absolute blast along the way. We’re not being shown the likes of Armadillo, Blackwater or Mexico, we are visiting those places ourselves, existing within those spaces just as much as -- if not more so -- than the people who actually live there. It’s a distinction that, once again, not only separates RDR from everything else but elevates it to a level that few games can match and is my main reason, I believe, for loving the game as much as I do. I appreciate the things attempted with the narrative (well, what I’ve experienced of it so far anyway) and the advances and refinement demonstrated by the mechanics, but it is Red Dead Redemption’s space and my ability to exist inside it that makes the game one of the best to have come out of last year.

Gran Turismo 5

I find it slightly amusing that now Polyphony Digital’s latest is finally out, everyone has forgotten just how long it took to come. For so long -- years even -- people whined that Gran Turismo 5 was taking too long and jokingly stated that it would be the racing genre’s very own Duke Nukem Forever (and, on that note, look how that turned out…) but now that it is here no one cares and the game has, mostly, been put behind in favour of others. This could be down to the general disappointment that Gran Turismo 5 became, being nothing more than a refined, high definition version of what has come before, or it could be as a result of the always looking forward mentality that gamers and the industry so easily portray, but whatever the reason it’s as amusing as it is ironic and interesting to observe. Personally and not surprisingly given who I am, Gran Turismo 5 hasn’t been forgotten and in fact is a game constantly on my mind despite having not played it in a while. Its release brings about so many intriguing things to consider, not least of which is its dedication to the passion for and celebration of the automotive industry.

More than anything else, Gran Turismo has always been about the cars: the speed, the technology, the thrill, and the engineering. This is evident in Gran Turismo 5, too, right from the opening clip. You can have your racing and celebrity drivers; in Gran Turismo, the cars take center stage and nothing else. Whether it’s a small, slow and agile car like the Mazda MX-5 or a supercar like the Pagani Zonda, each car has the chance to shine in Gran Turismo and each car is worth a drive. The original game brought with it the moniker of ‘The Real Driving Simulator’, a phrase that implied that no other game gave you a realistic simulation of what it was like to drive these cars, fast, around the various circuits. With Gran Turismo 5, that definition changes and instead represents what it means to simply drive: nothing more, nothing less. Sure, the driving is still done on the track and the game is still structured the same as it ever was, but after GT’s competition stepped up and, in some instances, overtook the successes of Polyphony’s famous franchise, the ethos changed and, upon doing so, changed the series -- a move that was necessary, and one that separates the game from anything else. It may go unnoticed when the game’s graphics, quantity of cars and tracks, and new additions such as NASCAR, WRC and weather effects take up all the attention, but the difference is there, subtly, and defines Gran Turismo 5 as a shift in the franchise. Whether this change proves to be successful remains to be seen, but it is this passion and celebration of cars that puts Gran Turismo 5 on my list, and makes me excited to not only revel in such adulation in the months to come, but excited for what the next installment will bring too.

Alan Wake

When I previewed this game, I made sure to be clear on just how important its emphasis on telling a good, mature story was to me. Now that I’ve played it and can reflect on my thoughts, I’m delighted to see that it delivered on my expectations.

Alan Wake was a disappointment to a lot of people. Its long and arduous development period, combined with exaggerated hype, ensured that people wanted more from the game than it was probably capable of delivering, ending up in a fair bit of criticism as it fell short. That’s not to say Alan Wake is a bad game -- far from it in fact -- it’s just, people expected one thing and ultimately got another, and this left a lot of people feeling unsatisfied. From its somewhat strange collectibles to the linear level design -- a direct conflict to the open-ended structure it was originally revealed to have -- what we got with Alan Wake wasn’t what we thought it would be, and yet, somehow, it was at the same time. Right from the start Alan Wake promised to tell a decent, mature story, featuring characters that we could relate to and a setting that was both awe-inspiring and natural. The final product delivered on all these fronts, telling a tale that while not new in other mediums was certainly new territory for games; using characters who, despite the supernatural elements of the game, were grounded in reality; and gave us a small, quaint town in Bright Falls in which we could inhabit, get to know the locals and, in my case, ultimately fall in love with. On this last point, the game dropped the ball a little by focusing so much on the light/dark mechanic, setting most of the game at night and ensuring that I couldn’t fully enjoy the beauty of Bright Falls, but this point is minor and I still came away satisfied with my visit. Even more enjoyable was the story, its realism -- even if inaccurate in terms of its depiction of a writer -- resonating with me where so many other games fail. Instead of flair and spectacle, Alan Wake had a sense of elegance and poignancy to it, something that was enhanced by the subdued nature of its tale of a couple trying to get away from their everyday life for a break, and by the laidback, happy attitudes of Bright Falls’ residents. Sure it has a strong element of supernatural, perhaps horrifying spectacle, but despite its prominence in the overall story -- particularly in the later stages of the adventure -- it can be overlooked when considering the realities demonstrated in the game, and what they mean for games going forward. It wasn’t the best story in gaming and the ways in which it was told were inconsistent, but the fact that it was telling a story in the first place makes it a game that I didn’t just enjoy, but one I hope is considered in the future as more and more developers shift their focus away from the bombast and flamboyance, and towards the potential of interactive storytelling.

Donkey Kong Country Returns

How do you take a series of games that, while fondly remembered, hasn’t been relevant for well over a decade and whose genre has moved on in a multitude of ways since? Donkey Kong Country Returns is how, and Retro’s latest game is a demonstration of how to take a quality product of years ago and give it the modern sensibilities necessary to make it successful today.

The Donkey Kong Country trilogy was an amazing series of platformers that gave Mario a run for his money more often than not, if not in design than certainly in personality. They took a character that, while well-known, didn’t have the popularity the Italian plumber did, changed his perception from antagonist to lovable brute, and set him forth on adventures of bananas, evil crocodiles and the constant need to spell his (last) name. What followed was a fanbase and, as the years progressed nostalgia, leaving anyone who tried to revive the franchise with a lofty reputation to live up to. If you were going to choose anyone to give it a try it would be Retro Studios and, fast forward to the game’s release, you have a product that doesn’t just allow people to indulge in the familiarity of a series that they hold dear, but one that brings it to the modern era and establishes it amongst its more recent peers. And it is that word, modern, that summarises everything that’s good about Donkey Kong Country Returns: you’re still playing on a mostly 2D plane, going from left to right, collecting bananas and coins and jumping on the heads of your foes, but you’re doing it with better graphics and sound, and with level design that has had years of refinement and experimentation, rather than levels that emulate from one source. It’s a reinterpretation of what it means to be a Donkey Kong Country game, whilst still being a Donkey Kong Country game and as such it gave everybody what they wanted: it brought the franchise into the current times and made it relevant again, pleasing Nintendo; it let people relive their childhood whilst also experiencing a new direction for the series, pleasing the fanbase; and put the series -- and thus, Retro’s talent -- on par with its peers of today, pleasing the Texas based studio. It is everything you could want from a reboot and the example of how it should be done should any other developer, and any other franchise, decide to attempt a similar thing in the future.

***

So, the possibility to visit places that we can’t in reality, a loving nod to and respect for all things automotive, and a demonstration of how to make something from the past important in the present (and, I hope, the future). An interesting, if eclectic, mix of games then, all worth playing and worth considering. You may have noted that I have been fairly quiet about these titles despite expressing my love for them. This will change in the near future as I have a lot to say on each of them, and will be posting those thoughts up as soon as I can.

Stay tuned for part two tomorrow.