|
[In this design article, veteran EA, Radical and THQ designer (and design director) Mike Lopez looks at the make-up of the racing game genre, asking what factors truly differentiate one title from another, and how we can communicate them effectively to players.]
Back in the early 1990s, the racing genre was quickly
becoming a major sector of the gaming market. In the early days of the console
racing genre, there emerged some real-world emulating racing simulations like Super
Monaco GP, Indy Car Racing and Formula One.
On the other end of the spectrum there were
games that focused more on non-traditional racing environments (i.e. OutRun, Test
Drive, etc.).
For several years this division was very clear, in that
everything that was simulating real-world sports was a "simulation" (or "sim")
and everything else was an "arcade" racer.
This division held all
racing titles quite nicely, because those games that fell into the sim category
were obvious and most everything in the arcade category (everything not-sim)
played quite similarly -- due to the relative infancy of racing development and
the technical limitations on the consoles.
Then -- lucky for me -- along came Road Rash which sort of broke out of the clear division. While Road Rash was clearly focused on
non-traditional environments and mostly fit into the arcade category, it also added a large and distinct layer of
fighting -- and so EA begin to market it as "Motorcycle Racing
Combat".
A few years later, with the emergence of Twisted Metal, the industry created a new sub-genre called racing
combat.
Cue 15+ years of racing game evolution. Now it's 2009
and the simplistic and archaic arcade/sim
categorization struggles inadequately to describe modern racing games that have
evolved in many different directions, and that no longer have such
clear-cut differences.
The racing games of today have truly blurred the lines
between arcade and sim descriptors, with executions that
vary wildly in physics model (deep vs. simple), racing style focus (technical
vs. non-technical) and track type (circuit, point-to-point or open-world).
Because the industry marketing and press have not kept up
with advances in gameplay variations and provided more granular descriptions,
many racing products of today suffer from an acute identify crisis and are
poorly differentiated from their competition.
In fact, this market confusion
presents a serious need to better define the racing experience of each game and
to educate the industry and consumers about where racing has come. This will also help game developers and designers who are looking to properly understand and identify the experience they are seeking in their racing game.
My overall intention
here is to identify three separate gameplay categories that should be
communicated by marketers and press to clearly communicate a racing game's
identity profile given the racing products of today.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
Leaving it up to the 'marketing team' to communicate to consumers what the game is like is not going to give the consumer a good picture.
They will present the game in such a way that they hope will give the highest number of sales, not necessarily the most accurate or clear description of the game.
Unfortunately, publishers will probably care less about diversifying their audience into different subsets and having scalar choices where a customer may only buy 1 game out of 10 because of its described Mechanics Depth, so they will instead use "Arcade" and get him/her to buy 6 out of 10 of their racing titles. The back of box will probably still read "Buy this game, give me your money!"
But if nothing else, this will help me, and other devs, to better identify the aspects of games I develop and create a better parlance with my peers and bosses.
It is true that Publishers operate in their own self interest and more mundane racing games have a reason to stay vague but I believe AAA racing titles like GTR, Midnight Club and [perhaps the older] NFS titles have reason to stand out and it is in their best interest to do so and to communicate that to the user. Once the leaders pave the way the rest will best follow or it will be obvious to the consumer that they have conspicuously failed to do so. I also feel that this issue of education needs to be focused as much at the industry (including those marketing and PR people) as at the end user and it needs to be communicated as much by the press as by the PR/marketing folks.
@ Henk,
The idea is to augment the information of reviews and press, not to replace it. Also, it takes the majority of user (the larger casual segment) much longer to differentiate controls and mechanics in a game and the demo may not provide enough content for them to fairly do so. This is not a problem for the highly experienced hard core racing base, of which I suspect you may fall into.
Cheers.
Funny that you mention Road Rash. It is a perfect example. The box fronts from the original game communicate the gameplay experience very well. It unfortunate that the depth of play won't hold up in the current environment, but it is still a great platform to start with.
What we seem to be lacking is some new styles of racing/driving games. When I was a kid I played a lot of Car Wars (tabletop RPG), and also played Autoduel on C64. It would be amazing to take that to the next-generation. Imagine if Fallout 3 had vehicles, and you could battle while trying to drive from DC to Boston, hoping you put enough guns on your car (Auto Assault attempted this, but failed for enough reasons to have it's own discussion) to make the trek. Also Road Rash as noted was a very addictive game for it's day, and that simple premise can easily be converted to current-gen systems, plus this is a perfect title for an online component (this title can also be ruined by making it overly complex, or adding gameplay features beyond trying to knock your opponents off their bikes using fists and weapons). Collin McRae was an outstanding rally title, Dirt is impressive, but takes away the focus and simplicity that made the original Colin McRare games so great. I think the market can also use a NEW simple old-fashoned arcade style racer with great liscensed cars, and more user-friendly controls than "sim" type racers like Gran Turismo.
I think racing games will make a comeback for sure, and there seem to be several holes in the market that can easily be filled.
1. An emphasis on visual environment quality, trying to be "realistic" in appearance (if not modern in setting, at least fully-realized and internally consistent)
2. The use of physics engines for various aspects of game play. Do we use the physics engine for defining vehicle control, (X)or for generating lovingly-rendered eye candy crashes?
3. Variety in the player vehicle types. Every game that I know of has the vehicle changing from time to time.
4. Customization. Every race game that I know of has the ability to customize your vehicle in some way, in both the performance envelope and the appearance.
5. Replay engines. What modern race game doesn't allow a review of the action that just happened?
6. Online head-to-head play against other players. Again, what modern game doesn't have some sort of ability to compare your skills to others?
If every game has the above, then we can pretty much ignore them as game aspects (unless they are notable by their absence). No differentiation to be found in any of the above.
Open world vs. linear - that one is less obvious that one might think. Perhaps "freeform vs. goal-oriented" would describe it more accurately. A game may allow multiple routes to get to the goal, but the goal is set... is that "open"? A closed-course game that lets you win by coming in first place, destroying your opponents, throwing enough burning engine parts into the audience to empty the stands, or threatening to run over the guy holding the checkered flag... is that "linear"?
Objective types - time, maneuver, combat. Sim style race games put the emphasis on "race", and a great deal of how the game is designed grows up around that goal/constraint. "Bad boy" games are about maneuver and combat. There can be some incorporation of time in bad-boy games and some incorporation of combat in sim games, of course, but there tends to be a clear emphasis of one over the other.
Control style - this is a major differentiator. IMHO, there are two schools: "sim", in which the player is challenged/hindered to control their vehicle (mastery of the controls and handling of the vehicle is the primary goal), and "arcade", in which the game gives the player "what they meant to do" and the challenge is found in other aspects (combat, recognizing opportunities to score points, etc.); controlling the vehicle is a given. People who like one style of control seem to seldom venture into games with the other, at least in my experience.
Social style - by this I mean differentiating between "sanctioned" and "unsanctioned" gameplay. Track racing in the real world is "sanctioned"; you won't go to jail for doing it; you are a "professional" at what you do. "Bad boy" games which feature destructible environments, NPC/mobs who are not "participants", etc. are the opposite; what the player does would be "unsanctioned" by the environment they are in, but they do it anyway.
So the categorization I see is:
Arcade-vs-sim controls
Time-vs-combat-vs-maneuver objectives
Freeform-vs-linear gameplay
Professional-vs-bad boy style
It all comes down to the experience of the game. The methods and tools underlying the game are fascinating to us but of no interest to the player. What differentiates race games is -what the player does-, not how the game does it.
@Tom
I couldn't disagree more. I'm a racing game enthusiast and have been one from around when Revs came out on the Commodore 64.
The racing game genre has never seen games better than today, with the possible exception of the racing combat genre.
Burnout Revenge (and to a degree Test Drive Unlimited) are incredible games from both technical and user experience perspective. They completely redefined the open world racing game genre games. What Criterion is doing with DLC on Burnout Revenge is incredible.
The "hardcore" racing sim market has never been better either. The PGR and especially Forza franchises are taking some of the great social media features and blending them into video games in very exciting ways. Gran Turismo 5 (Prologue) is a graphical masterpiece. Race Pro's physics engine, from a perspective of a racing game enthusiast, is absolutely amazing (shame about the rest of the game).
Racing online against other people has never been as exciting. The competition is absolutely intense at the highest levels, and the online racing communities have never been more vibrant.
Add in Pure, DiRT, McRae Rally, Grid for games that already out and the six AAA titles that are coming out this year (Fuel, Need for Speed Shift, DiRT2, Forza 3 - rumored and Split/Second) it's gonna be pure bliss for people like me this year.
And that's just on the consoles...from what I understand the PC side of racing games is just as great.
No sir, there is no rut. It's the golden age of racing games, right now.
What puzzles me a little with the article though is how casually the term racing game is used in reference to what really is a car game or a driving game.
A shooter is a shooter regardless what type of guns are used to do the actual shooting - here the term Third or First person shooter is used as an indicator of the viewing perspective and the somewhat new term Tactical shooter relates to the style of game play.
It seems odd that anything with a car in it gets labeled a racing game (except for the GTA and Driver series games) and that to me is what causes the most confusion with regards to this genre of games.
I personally think the differentiation should be between driving games and racing games where games like TDU, Burnout, PGR and NFS are driving games and Forza, Dirt, GRID, RACE Pro and the Gran Turismo series are racing games.
Regarding Driving vs. Racing I have had that same debate before and I could not disagree more with your slanted categorization. Why is racing for time considered true racing when racing to beat the opponents is not? Both elements are key to the real world sports and it is obvious that in the real world coming in first is a lot more important than setting a new time record. Also your Racing vs. Driving terminology would certainly cause just as much confusion as Sim vs. Arcade.
I do notice your distinction of games mostly mirrors mine along the lines of what I would call technical vs. non-technical racing so on that we agree. Because of the technical racing style though I believe PGR belongs in the Forza, Dirt, GT camp.
Just out of curiosity are you European like my former colleague who I had the same debate with? Also are you much more of a fan of the technical track mastery games like Forza/GT like he was? He is English and is an extremely hard core technical track mastery racing fan and I suspect his cultural experiences and strong preferences bias his view (technical driving games being much more popular in Europe). Personally I prefer non-technical, competition focused games like NFS/Burnout but I recognize and commend the top technical games for AAA execution and for delivering the technical gameplay that their fan base has come to love.
I am European but I do not recall having had this talk with you before, sorry :)
I agree that my categorization can cause confusion too but I do think the titles I referred to as "racing games" lean more towards depicting the real racing scene compared to the titles I referred to as “driving games”.
You ask “Why is racing for time considered true racing when racing to beat the opponents is not?”
I don’t think the win criteria dictates the label, that I think is more down to the content and overall theme of the game.
There is no preference on my part between “racing games” and “driving games”, mood and available time to invest into the gaming session dictates what type of game I will launch.
LOL. :) I was referring to neither you nor myself. But I do think the terminology of racing vs. driving is more familiar in Europe than in North America although I still disagree with that division.
My whole point to the article was that dividing games only between real world simulations and everything else creates a lot of unnecessary confusion in the genre and that is not anything that re-branding of the terminology is going to solve. It is also pretty self explanatory to most users that if something is a Grand Prix, Gran Touring, or Rally game it is a game that is attempting to mimic the racing sport from the real world. The bulk of the confusion lies in everything that is not in that category and that is increasingly a larger and larger share of racing games.
@ Josh
My list of examples was not meant to be exhaustive. I also should have included Forza.
I know there are the PGR, GTR ,FORZA and Gran Turismo fans here.. but really... lets be honest there is minimal innovation with the content of these four games I have mentioned. How different is the next PGR going to be? Forza? okay, some new cars and new tracks,but the formula is the same.. every game..
Especially now since the graphics have gotten to a point where it can't go that much further. Even with HDR and RayTrace engine tech coming up the difference for a racing game when you are driving by things so fast will not make a huge difference. The jump from PS2 to PS3 and 360 was considerable and extended the life of racing games, but where can they go now? where can they go that hasn't been done before. This is the real point of this whole discussion. Soon the graphics in Grid and Gran Turismo will be standard and the reason why people will buy a game is what new concept it brings to the table. Just like NFS underground explored the Tuner culture that was hot and trendy to huge sales... there will need to be a new trend, a new idea that reinvigorates the genre.
To be honest I don't see something coming around for a while that does this, NFS shift? okay done before, Dirt2? another rally game that looks similar to first one with some upgrades... all of them are culprits of Sequel mentality. People get on EA's case for being sequel developers but in the racing genre all the publishers are culprits.
Where else can you actually GO with the genre? everything that has been done HAS been done to death and beyond. (well, it would be nice to have a remake of Grand Prix Legends on current consoles!). we're about at the apex for visuals, pretty much everyone from hardcore sim to pure arcade fans have had plenty of games made for their tastes (console, handheld and PC) and hell, open world and closed tracks have been done quite well. motos and cars together? done. car combat up the wazoo? done. lowriders and/or import tuning? D-U-N, done! what's the next big thing?
I remember when the 3DO version of Need for Speed was released and then Road Rash. It was a blast of fresh air back then (windows rolled down at 95mph) and every once in a while, I'll plug in my 3DO and have at both games just to remember what it was like back in the day... but I digress.
More precisely, is it necessary for racing/driving games makers to focus on short-lived trends rather than continue raising whatever bars are left? why not "innovate" by creating a completely upgradable game experience. one great game engine that supports all styles of driving/racing, downloadable content and whatever else you can squeeze onto a hard drive (especially given that 2 of the 3 home consoles are pretty much acting like gaming PC's)? Hell, what other trends are there left? i can think of... um... electric car driving/racing games (talk about "I need a soundtrack badly because all i hear is nothing!").
Modern car culture is fascinating and all, however, no publisher wants to be stuck with piles of a game that didn't take off because some trend died out while a game was in production. Granted, part of a publisher's strategy is no doubt to forecast far enough ahead while also helping keep a trend alive. However, savvy fans can pick up on that smell a country mile away and they'll stay home when that game ships.
So what's next? I'm sort of hoping more stuff like Test Drive Unlimited (driving and racing in real cities) for the fans of real world cars, mandatory car damage in any racer (i'm talkin' to YOU, Gran Turismo Beauty Pack), more unique "niche" experiences, perhaps within larger racing games (Test Drive: Eve of Destruction is a personal fave), perhaps the ability to download/purchase any car made if a player desires ('76 Pacer? noooo problem!). I'd LOVE to see another Le Mans game (I can remember driving a few real-time 24 hour races in 4 six-hour sessions each in TD: Le Mans on the Dreamcast), but in the end, it really is all about marketing what's now considered a reliable (i.e. boring to some, thrilling to those that love it) genre.
And hey... where's a NEW Road Rash game after all this time? NFS is fun and all, but i really need to kick some leather-clad AI goon off his Diablo at 145mph!
g.
I have no idea why no one has really re-made "test drive", in teh sense of having a racing game that's all about over the top tricks that we used to do with our hotwheels cars as kids. If I were making a racing game I would go get a hotwheels liscense and go f'n crazy, making the most fun and wacked out tracks letting people pull crazy stunts, mabye with a bit of "RC pro am" (battle cars, etc). The point is of course - doing this right and finding the fun, most developers can't execute on great ideas or run out of money or dont have the talent to do so.
EA had something with Most wanted but they never expanded on it, nor used the same engine for their next game, Carbon never lived up to Most wanted.
(For their times)
Need for speed 3 = Excellent
NFS 4 = Average
Porsche unleashed = Excellent (under appreciated)
NFS UG 1 = Excellent
NFS UG 2 = Good
Most wanted = Excellent
NFS Carbon = Mediocre (the engines and dirving model were wacked out compared to MW)
NFS Prostreet = Average