Sega Racers Are Slicker Than Grease

I read an interesting article on Kotaku lately.  And I normally skim over 95% of that site because a lot of it sucks but this one really got my attention.  It pertains to Sega racers, don't worry.  Will get to it in a sec.

Is this the reason why people love Call of Duty?  Yes, I know there's many haters out there reading this.  But what is it that makes the game so popular...?

IT RUNS FAST.  Call of Duty runs at 60 frames per second and delay from controller to game is just 50 milliseconds.  Compare that to Battlefield 3 which runs at 30 frames per second and has a delay of 110 milliseconds.  This is huge when you think about it.  It's a subtle thing that very few people mention.  It's that ingrained into the experience that you're too engrossed with the controls to even notice.

Now CoD haters can come up with all sorts of complaints--the game takes no skill or teamwork, it's horribly unbalanced, there's no tanks or jet fighters.  I'm not here to disagree with these points.  But that means nothing to many since CoD at its core runs fast.  It's very responsive and also very rewarding to shoot people.  I mean, that's a fact.  Battlefield 3 sounds great but in terms of good old-fashioned arcade shooting, Call of Duty wins.  Well, that's the general consensus, I suppose.

Now Call of Duty trades graphical prowess for pure speed.  CoD, in its 5th iteration on the X360/PS3, is running on a dated engine.  From a technical standpoint, Battlefield is leagues ahead in terms of visuals.  But do graphics really matter??  I'd much rather play a fast game with lesser graphics and better performance than one that looks great but isn't as responsive.  I know many gamers won't admit this, but I believe more people feel the same way too.  There's a reason why Call of Duty outsold Battlefield by a mile...

Also, this is why I personally prefer GoldSource Valve games to Source games...Counter-Strike 1.6 runs faster than Counter-Strike Source, especially on older computers.  So shove it, Source...

EDIT: I do read from a few places that some would gladly sacrifice 30 frames for a much better looking games.  I don't know...isn't the game all about GAMEPLAY and not graphics?  And that 60 FPS instead of 30 would have better gameplay?  It's an opinion, but one that I believe holds some credibility.

So about Sega racers.  Is that one of the reasons why games like Daytona USA, Daytona USA 2, Scud Race, and OutRun 2 are so amazing?  Because Sega, first and foremost, put the most emphasis on ensuring optimal graphic performance and top-notch handling?  I hear plenty of people complain about next-gen racers like Forza, GRID, DiRT and (dare I say it) Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing because they run at 30 FPS.  Well, some of those may run at 60 FPS, I don't know for sure, but you get the idea.  Even if the human eye can only detect up to 25 FPS or so (maybe faster in certain situations), me and many others do notice the difference between 30 to 60 FPS.  It makes a big deal and now you know that.

And obviously, I haven't talked about the response time between the controller & the game for said racing games.

So there you go.  Another reason why game devs should get off their high horse on outstanding graphics and make a game that just plain runs fast.  It's much more satisfying that way.  Then you can go for great graphics (which is what Sega did...Scud Race and Daytona 2 both look gorgeous and run fast because of the outstanding Model3 hardware).  And Sega racers (most of them anyway), got that aspect down.  Not much else to say here.  That's just my brief rant.

There's a big NASCAR race this Sunday.  Final race of the Sprint Cup season at Homestead, FL...Carl Edwards vs. Tony Stewart.  Should be interesting.  Thankfully the Saints have a bye so I should be able to watch it.  Too bad I'll be doing schoolwork in the meantime!  More on school stuff later, things are getting interesting...  EDIT: Read my take on the race here.