A Racing Realism Example

Earlier this month I posted about the ways in which racing game developers chase and strive for realism, by visiting real life tracks and demonstrating their attention to detail in things like development diaries. Well, conveniently, Turn 10 have released two videos for the upcoming Forza Motorsport 4 that are exactly what I was talking about in that post, and below I have embedded them so you can understand my article a little better.

Both of these videos focus on specific tracks, one real (Hockenheim) and the other fictional (The Bernese Alps), and as such don't necessarily cover everything that I was talking about in my post, but they're still a great example so I encourage you to check them out if you think you will find it interesting. Even if you're not into racing games like I am, watching the two videos might still be of interest to you if you find the way studios approach their development of games fascinating in any way -- it's very easy to forget, sometimes, about the amount of effort and passion and creativity that goes into these big, blockbuster videogames, so it is nice to be reminded of such when things like these development diaries come along.

Anyway, here they are.

The Bernese Alps:




Hockenheim:

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.

Outside The Life

Now that I have resumed my F1 2010 story (finally!), let me talk about my time with the game outside of that role-playing experience. Ever since finishing my first season for that narrative, I’ve been playing the game intermittently in things like its time trials, online and, recently, in the game’s career mode. I originally did this to mess around while I contemplated how I would approach my second season but as I realised it would be a while before that could commence, I did it to just enjoy the game for what it was: a racing game focused on Formula 1, and its 2010 season.

Doing so was interesting for a variety of reasons. First of all, playing it online was insightful because of what that actually entailed, as well as observing how people respond to that. Being a simulation game centered on a real life sport, it is easy to assume that those who are playing it would understand the need to actually use the brakes on their cars, or to pit when their tires are degrading and they are losing grip. Being a racing game, however, it’s also easy to assume that its players would ignore such rules and just focus on going as fast as possible, no matter what. Intriguingly, both ended up being true. Those playing F1 2010 online did brake for corners, allowed for a loss of grip or damage on their cars and, for the most part, raced as you would expect them to in such an environment, but they also used the people in front as aid in their braking (causing collisions) and, if they weren’t winning or if it was clear that they weren’t going to be able to, they quit the race, just like in any other game. As someone who wanted to play a game about Formula 1 against (or perhaps with) people with a like-minded interest, this latter behaviour was frustrating -- particularly as I did have some level of expectation that things would be different with F1 2010, given the game’s context. But as someone who is passionate about the medium overall and thus, how players approach their games and the responses they can have to them, I found it fascinating that they weren’t just engaging with the actual rules of the game (or sport), but they were trying to use them to enjoy themselves as well… until they realised they weren’t going to win and it was time to quit. Such behaviour is, I’d say, different to how players approach a multiplayer FPS or even other racing games, and was definitely something I pondered after every race I did (and do) successfully manage to have. The online multiplayer space in general is still an ambiguous, mysterious place that definitely needs more exploration and certainly doesn’t get anywhere near as much critical attention as it should, so considering that alongside the circumstances I would find myself in with F1 2010 online was absolutely an enlightening experience. I’d be lying, however, if I didn’t say that I wish people could just race properly for a change and actually embrace a game’s full breadth of rules, rather than just the ones that please them. I can dream, I guess.

Secondly, playing F1 2010 as a player (rather than fulfilling the role I inhabit during my story) has been interesting because it means that I can think about it in the context of it being a racing game, rather than a Formula 1 game. What that means is that, like the various other games I cover with my Behind The Wheel series, I can approach F1 2010 with a more analytical eye and think about it in a critical context, as opposed to just an entertainment one. The results of this are incoming, but in the meantime I have found it interesting because, as I alluded to back when I was anticipating it, it’s the first Formula 1 game I have played in a long time. Comparing it to my previous experiences with really old F1 games has been interesting but also, perhaps, a little unfair given the length of time between them. That has made it somewhat hard to approach because there’s no benchmark or fair comparison to hold it up against -- aside from other racing sims such as Forza or Gran Turismo, which deal with different subject matter -- but even so it has been insightful trying to understand what F1 2010 is, and what it brings to the table. There’s no denying that I was pretty enamoured (and still am) with the game when I offered my brief impressions of it, and while I consider it to be a separate entity, my Living The Life story would also imply to anyone who reads it that the game is something that I am very fond of. Discovering precisely why that is has been good fun, and I look forward to elaborating on and explaining it to you in the near future.

Lastly, I have found it fascinating seeing how I have approached things like races in the career mode, outside of the context of my story. When I’m role-playing for that, I’m acting as a proper F1 driver and conveying what that reveals in a story format. Playing it as a player, on the other hand, has revealed that regardless of context, I still approach it as -- yep, you guessed it -- a driver. In other words, I’m still thinking about nailing every single corner, using every single inch of a circuit and driving to the utmost of my ability even though it’s all somewhat unnecessary, because I’m not doing it for a specific purpose. I’m not trying to create a compelling story or to achieve something like a fast lap time (not always, at least, on that last point) while playing as a player, so why do I still treat it like I’m a driver rather than someone who is pressing buttons on a controller? Pondering that question has been extremely interesting given my history with the racing genre, my passion for racing in general (games or real life) and, indeed, the different ways in which I approach the different games I play. But while I don’t know the answer to it just yet, I can say that it is absolutely not surprising that I act in this way. When I’m playing a simulation game, where real tracks are involved and, in F1 2010’s case, real drivers and real life rules play a significant part, I engage that experience through my understanding of it and what it does (or should) entail given its subject matter. I know that the infamous hairpin at Monaco or Eau Rouge at Spa are real corners, that require real consideration (in terms of how to take them, speeds that they allow, how a car should behave whilst driving through them, etc.) and, as a result, my inclination is to treat them as such rather than the virtual reproductions they actually are. As a result, getting them right and doing so consistently is crucial, to me, and when I’m not doing that or at the very least trying to, then I’m not -- in my eyes -- playing the game(s) properly and therefore not having what I deem to be the intended experience. Recognising this because of playing F1 2010 for fun has been wonderful, and I’m glad that the game has been able to open my eyes up, yet again, to something that I was oblivious to previously.

It sounds strange: F1 2010 has given me so much and allowed me to understand far more about the genre, myself and what racing games can provide, and yet for the majority of people who play it they would only see a game that’s focused on Formula 1. Like other sports games or, indeed, other titles that focus their attention on one thing, F1 2010 to most people wouldn’t be anything more than enjoying that particular subject should it interest them, but to me it has been a great learning experience; a fantastic racing game; and an opportunity to celebrate and revel in some of the things that I absolutely love. What I have discussed above is just a small example of the impact it has had on me and my thoughts; what I’m yet to communicate might just be, perhaps, even more interesting. Stay tuned to see if I’m right.

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.

The Life I Live

When I purchased F1 2010 I bought it excited to finally be able to play a racing game based firmly in the realities of a real life sport that I love. I was eager to re-live some of the moments that made the real 2010 season so amazing, and ready to drive on both tracks I’m familiar with -- but don’t get featured regularly in other games like Monaco and Albert Park in Australia -- as well as venues completely foreign to me, like Abu Dhabi or Singapore. It was an opportunity to do something different, again, after years of familiarity in games like Forza or Gran Turismo. Never in my life did I expect it to enlighten me to things I was oblivious to previously, or for it to completely change my perception of the genre or, indeed, change me as a player. By approaching the game like I have, by living the life (so to speak), F1 2010 opened my eyes to a whole host of things and, now that the series is under way and I’ve demonstrated my commitment to it, I thought it was time to discuss just what they are.

One of the first things I realised by playing the game the way I do was that I was telling a story; that I was giving the events that unfolded weight and meaning. Instead of engaging it as a series of tracks and menus like it actually is -- like most racing games are -- I was giving each race, each event, a purpose, and realising that was fascinating. Thinking about it some more, I started to recognise that I wasn’t just telling this story as it happened (what you see here on the blog), I was actually creating it by living it. I wasn’t taking what took place and repurposing it to post a story afterwards, I was going through the events as they occurred, reacting to and dealing with them as if they really happened and that amazed me. It wasn’t a case of a spin just happening and me forgetting about it by the next corner as in other games, that spin was important because it was a mistake on my behalf, affected my current round’s progress directly and impacted on my overall impression of my performance(s) for that event. Basically, I was thinking like a driver rather than a player and as a result, acting like one too.

In any other game, this would be considered role playing: I’m intentionally playing in a particular way to benefit my desired experience, and to fulfill an activity that, as much as I’d like to, I can’t do (professionally, at least) in real life. Videogames have an entire genre centered on this act, on our assumption of doing something we can’t or won’t do in our real lives, but no one would ever expect a racing game to be an RPG -- even games like Test Drive Unlimited 2 wouldn’t be considered as an RPG, despite its leveling up and general lifestyle (more on this soon) -- and I certainly never expected an F1 game, of all things, to deliver such an experience. In some respects, it doesn’t -- my approach is what makes this story, this particular role, possible, not the game itself -- but the fact that, by living it myself, I’ve shown it can be done is significant, I think, and opens up a lot of possibilities for the future. In real life, racing can be hard to get into, requiring a lot of money to survive and, it has to be said, luck too -- I myself missed out because it wasn’t financially viable despite some unexpected support, so it’s not easy.* If racing games could enable people to fulfill their dreams as a racing driver in a virtual (and therefore, much cheaper) environment, then that could open up a lot of opportunities, not least of which is allowing people to live their ideal lives.

At the end of the day F1 2010 may just be a series of menus and circuits like all other racing games, and I may just be pressing buttons on a controller, but if games in other genres can empower us to do things that are impossible in reality or take us to places we are unable to physically visit, then surely racing games can too?

I’ll have more on what playing F1 2010 in this way has revealed once the season is a little further along, so stay tuned.

*Yes, my love for racing could have become a professional reality if I had the means (read: money) to make it happen. I didn’t, however, so virtual racing -- among other things -- satisfies a void that my real life circumstances could not.