How Do You Know It's Not a Sim?

Feature Article

Submitted on: 10/14/2010 by Robert Kollars

Sim racing as described by Wikipedia: Sim (simulated) Racing is the collective term for computer software (i.e. a vehicle simulation game) that attempts to simulate accurately auto racing (a racing game), complete with real-world variables such as fuel usage, damage, tire wear and grip, and suspension settings. To be competitive in sim racing, a driver must understand all aspects of car handling that make real-world racing so difficult, such as threshold braking how to maintain control of a car as the tires lose traction, and how properly to enter and exit a turn without sacrificing speed. It is this level of difficulty that distinguishes sim racing from "arcade" driving games where real-world variables are taken out of the equation and the principal objective is to create a sense of speed as opposed to a sense of realism.

If you are a digital racing fan (PC or console), then most likely you are all too familiar with the rally cries "it’s not sim enough!" or "it’s too arcadey!" when talking about any new racing title that hits the market. What makes the video game racing genre such a tough enigma is that the large majority of people complaining have never ever climbed into a state of the art race car and pulled those belts tight.

It's still real to me!

While you will hear the same phrase being tossed around about other games like Madden, NHL, NBA 2K or MLB: The Show, the fact stands that a lot of us, if not most of us, have played these other sports. We have personal experiences of knowing what a blocking scheme should look like, how a 3-2 zone defense should look and feel, or what it feels like to snag a liner in the air before doubling up a guy at first base.

What most of us do not have is the experience of racing a Sprint Cup COT car in a pack of 42 other cars at speeds of 200 mph. Yet, the majority of responses you will read on any given forum plays out as if the starting grid of this weekend’s race in NASCAR has decided to join these same forums to discuss any given racing title.

Warning: traction control was used in this photo.

You will hear words like physics, realism and control bantered about as if the person uttering these words has years and years of experience behind the wheel of a racing machine in real life. These people take it personal and feel the need to trash a game if their "sim" expectations are not met. One of the biggest problems with these tantrums is the mere fact that we all have different ideas and expectations of what a true sim racer should be because most of us have no real-world racing experience. The hatred and disappointment is palatable, as if the developers created a game that is the antithesis of what we wanted.

In the video game world, there are certain titles that have reached iconic levels in the simulation racing ranks -- games like iRacing, rFactor, Richard Burns Rally Racing, Sim Bins Race series and NASCAR Racing Season 2003. These titles have reached and maintained their simulation reputation over the years, as each of titles consists of traits most of us consider sim. Are these based on our own experiences, or are they based off of the general perception? What quantifies these titles as sim racers as opposed to other race titles like NASCAR 09, Grid or F1 2010?

Pull those belts tight before dinner.

There are obvious factors that most of consider an arcade style of racing. If a person can smash the accelerator around the track (given the type of track) without letting up, it’s probably going to be classified as an arcade racer. If a person can bang off of another car and continue on as if nothing happened, it’s probably going to be classified as an arcade racer.

We know this, not because of our real-life racing experiences, but our real-life driving experiences. As a whole, we understand that real-life physics apply to our everyday lives. Most us know a tire can only handle so much, and an engine can only be pressed so hard before its destined for the junkyard.

Do we understand if our tire hits the apron of a track that traction is going to be minimized? Do we understand a car below us on a track can manipulate the air around the car so much so that a person may lose control. If people do realize these things can happen, it’s primarily because we’ve learned it from a race telecast.

"We are dialed in, don't touch a thing."

The next time a new racing title hits the market, what will determine our feelings on that title? Will it be what you consider to be a simulation based off of what other people feel? Or will it be considered a true simulator based off of what you think a true simulator should be. What factors will go into the classification that we adhere to said title, and will it be factual or extremely subjective. How much does the "fun factor" play into your decision, and is it possible a true simulator can be a blast to play as well as represent the sport it claims to replicate?

We are ready to roll on both.

There are obviously many factors that play into our personal decision and how we classify a racing game. Are we comparing it to other racing titles, or are we comparing it to our own real-life experiences? Either way, before you fly off the deep end and feel like it's your personal responsibility to destroy a game in an online forum, maybe it would be prudent to step back and ask yourself: "What am I basing this off of?" In the world of video game racing, conformity is not always a positive attribute.

Member Comments

# 1 Happy29 @ 10/14/10 01:59 PM

This is a great question and can open lots of debate. I think you would have to classify it as a simulation if a real racing team was to take it and use it as a tool to prepare for an upcoming race. I heard an interview with Jimmie Johnson this year where he raced in a sports car race at Watkins Glen but had never raced on the configuration that was being used. He used iRacing as a tool to test for the upcoming race to learn the things he needed for that weekend, he finished 2nd in that race. That is something that I don't think you would be able to get out of a console type game and that is why they may be targeted more for the arcade or casual gamer. When I go into iracing I know what I want my car to feel like and how it should respond to a certain bump and if it doesn't the set up area is so deep that I have many options to get the feel I want. The downside to this is if you are just a casual fan and don't know much in building cars this can become very complicated and overwhelming, causing frustration and people giving up because they do not understand what to do. This a good subject and I look forward to seeing what everyone has to say.

This is one thing I think makes iracing so much above the rest.

# 2 bluengold34_OS @ 10/14/10 02:03 PM

I would agree that the lack of good setups, and peoples knowledge(or lack there of) can be extremely frustrating. A lot of people do quit and give up because of this point.

# 3 lnin0 @ 10/14/10 09:34 PM

I think the physics engine is one part of the equation but the science of something like that can only go so far. At some point, all that number crunching has to be distilled down by talented game programmers. Molded together with the tricks of their trade and turned into what us wannabe racers perceive as truth.

I think the perception is far greater than the reality behind it. Take Forza 3 and Race Pro on the 360. Forza 3 probably has the more complex physic engine behind it. However, translated to the flat screen, I would put my money on Race Pro for conveying a more realistic feeling every time.

For me 'sim' goes beyond the pure physics or feel of the car. I want something more than a driving simulation - I want a racing sim. I want all those other real world variables. - tire wear, fuel load, setups, track condition, rules, flags, damage, weather - the more little details the more I can forgive the 'feel' to some extent.

Of course...multiplayer can go a long way in compensating for a lack of little details but even the best feeling physics engines can get a bit drab online. I think the best games are the ones that can balance all these aspects together.

# 4 RJTurneR @ 10/15/10 06:58 PM

Quote:


	I think the physics engine is one part of the equation but the science of something like that can only go so far. At some point, all that number crunching has to be distilled down by talented game programmers. Molded together with the tricks of their trade and turned into what us wannabe racers perceive as truth. I think the perception is far greater than the reality behind it. Take Forza 3 and Race Pro on the 360. Forza 3 probably has the more complex physic engine behind it. However, translated to the flat screen, I would put my money on Race Pro for conveying a more realistic feeling every time. For me 'sim' goes beyond the pure physics or feel of the car. I want something more than a driving simulation - I want a racing sim. I want all those other real world variables. - tire wear, fuel load, setups, track condition, rules, flags, damage, weather - the more little details the more I can forgive the 'feel' to some extent. Of course...multiplayer can go a long way in compensating for a lack of little details but even the best feeling physics engines can get a bit drab online. I think the best games are the ones that can balance all these aspects together.

Good post. I pretty much agree with all of that. Especially that last sentence. So far F1 2010 has pretty much been the closest to simulating the real world of F1. It may not be spot on (Especially the Multiplayer of it which needs an 'Automatic Noob/Idiot kicking system), but compared to the last few racing games I have owned it beats all of them.

NFS Shift was fun, but the single player wasn't good enough for me, and the multiplayer turned into demolition derby on a bigger scale. Racedriver GRID was pretty much the same, although I liked the wider range of cars available.

What ruins F1 2010 is the online. The majority of players are just idiots who see it as an arcade game and think its perfectly fine to ram, shunt, and destroy other peoples cars to win. The single player is actually a lot of fun. The AI is very competitive and the weather system can really make it difficult. My theory is the harder the game the better.

More Links