Talk:Racing game/Archive 1

Toy Car games?
I propose adding a list of games based on toy cars (Micro Machines, ChoroQ, etc.) 67.255.17.149 (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Board Games and Toys
Certain board games may also be considered racing game (e.g. Chutes and Ladders)

There are also racing toys.

Perhaps a disambiguation paragraph at the top would be appropriate.

Leonard G. 01:12, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Formula One PS2
Actually the series are far less realistic than their counterpart in PC, specially F1C... but someone posted this series in the arcade listing which is vastly incorrect since, perhaps at a less realistic level, the car oversteers, understeers, you can lock your brakes, blow your engine, there is tyre wear model, fuel comsuption model... furthermore you can set some few things like wings, chamber, ride height, bars, gear ratios.... so it is really a simulator, a bad one, but a simulator... this is true from 2002 when the series began to be developed by studio Liverpool, before that it is clear arcade... so I Updated this in the article

Fastest Racing Game
With simulated speeds that are over 750 km/h the Extreme-G series is the fastest game ever made. Although some might claim that F-ZERO is faster because it claims to be or had a counter that said you where going that fast, the game was not a realistic racing simulation like Extreme-G. I don't think F-ZERO should be clased as a simulation style racing game. It is more of an arcade racing game. (Simonapro 22:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Because we all know that motorcycles in space with guns is "a realistic racing simulation". Although the Extreme-G series is faster than previous games in the F-ZERO series the latest game, F-Zero GX, has a focus on pure speed and skill whereas the Extreme-G are a little bit more focused on action. Also it should be noted the point of view is different in each game. In F-Zero GX you play much larger vehicles with the camera pulled out from the track but in Extreme-G you play small vehicles with the camera placed much closer to the track. To more accurately measure the speed of the two games you would need to be in first person view. Do to the fact that this is going to be more and more heated debate as time goes on, as more very fast racing games come to the market and no way accurately measure the speed of each game, I say that the note should be removed from this article. (Bleek II 09:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Fixed link to article "Pole position II"
I have fixed the link to the game "Pole position II". Link did not have proper destination and therefore led to page has not been created page. Original link "Pole position 2" New link "Pole position II" 207.118.160.123 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

First racing game
Surely that would be Gran Trak 10? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Trak_10 No?
 * Can anyone else comment on this?
 * I went ahead and changed it. As noted in the change log, Gran Trak 10 is top-down, while Night Driving (the previous title nominate as "first racing game") is first-person and thus more similar to current-day racing games. Since the article covers first- and third-person racing games, I think Gran Trak has to count as the first racing game anyway.

I'm a little surprised nobody else had noticed this earlier (it's been like it for ages), so I'm open to reasons why I'm wrong.160.5.247.1 20:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember playing an arcade in the early 70's (around 72-73), the game was just some kind of projection (for the track) and some mechanical stuff with images of cars (like old F-1 cars, pre-70's) on top of that projection for the cars (no idea how it's "crashing" sensors worked), it seems to have been made in the late 60's. Does it qualify? It probably didn't use any kind of computers. I can't remember the name of the game either and can't find any information about it anywhere. There was also a shooting game with the similar technology with some jet planes that worked kind of the same way, the enemies would fly against you in a projected stuff and your plane was some fixed scale model (not a projection) that "shoots" missiles against the planes on the screen. It might have been made by Bally, Gottlieb or Williams, not sure, definitely it wasn't Japanese. Marcusbacus (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The driving game was most likely Speedway from Chicago Coin, but could have been one of the clones it inspired as well. Starting with Sega's Periscope in 1966, there was a mini-renaissance in the arcades for big simulation cabinets that used elaborate models, projection screens, and even zoetrope animation to create their graphical effects along with advanced sound and other special effects such as a motorcycle game that used a fan to simulate the wind blowing in your face.  None of these were video games though by either the legal definition (which requires the generation of a video signal) or the popular definition (which focuses on a hardware-engineered or computer software program played on some sort of display device).  These were just really fancy electro-mechanical games.  This type of game was killed off by the video game by the middle of the 1970s. Indrian (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Mario Kart Double Dash
There is an inaccuracy concerning Nintendo's arcade racers here. It says "Mario Kart Double Dash (NDS / Gamecube)" Double Dash is not available for the NDS, it is called "Mario Kart DS" on that platform.

Futuristic/Extreme racers
Should S.T.U.N. Runner be added to this list? Quite a few people consider this the first Futuristic/Extreme racer ever. 67.164.177.202 05:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If this is an exhaustive list then yes it should. By that token, so should Powerdrome that actually came out the previous year (1988). Is it just Level 2 headlines that allow direct linking via Fragment identifiers (the # thing)? It'd be nice to link to this section directly, or a page like it, to explain the concept and show similar. - RubyJester (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Due to lack of direct linkage, I created Category:Futuristic racing games to soak these up, allowing the fractured list on this page to be scaled back to a handful of informative examples of the genre. Although Fatal Inertia and Category:Wipeout were sub-categorised as Category:Vehicular combat games, Powerdrome doesn't actually include combat; so now they can all sit together. - RubyJester (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Project Gotham Series
Just wanted to know why it's considered arcade. I mean even though PGR focuses on style the handling of the cars is still more simulation than arcade. I think that, for example, Forza and PGR feel quite the same with all the help options activated (though Forza gets far more realistic if you turn it all off). 213.157.1.133 19:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A few small inaccuracies
I've added rFactor and GTR2. I felt that as rFactor seems to have the largeswt user base in the racing sim community at this date it deserved a mention, likewise GTR2 as GTL was mentioned. Also, I felt the need to add some more dates in racing game history as I felt it was inaccurate to miss out on racing games such as REVS, Indy 500 (1990) and F1GP. I know this is not exclusively a sim racing piece but neither is it exclusively for arcade racing and as such I think it should mention major milestones in each subcategory of the genre.

I've also modified the main body of text since as many of the things claimed as 'sims' were in fact either arcade or semi-simulations. Virtua racing is not a sim. It does not try to replicate true F1 handling or circuits, especially not compared to F1 Grand Prix which was also released that year; also, Colin Mcrae Rally is seen as a semi-simulation series by most sim racers and Driver did not have the most realistic physics engine ever introduced to PC.

82.69.88.21 01:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 12:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised there isn't a bigger war in here over the "simulators" and "non simulators"
Are we talking about physics, here? Content? Compatibility with racing wheels like the Driving Force Pro? If everyone can reach a consensus as far as the definition of what it is we're classifying, that's great, but then opinion still plays a big part. I've rearranged a few of the games to what I feel best represents their category, but I'm positive someone is going to swap Enthusia and Gran Turismo, at the very least. They'll probably toss Forza into "simulators" again, too.

My recommendation is to delete the area entirely (it would be reverted and I would receive a warning if I did it myself), or at least find a way to either reclassify the games or precisely define what separates them.

69.129.195.198 07:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Arcade/simulator categories
I have noticed that the games in each category have been moved around a lot. This has got to stop and I have an idea on how to improve that section.

I think that there should be 4 categories:

Pure simulators (e.g. Grand Prix series) Feature-filled simulators (e.g. Gran Turismo series) Semi-simulators (e.g. PlayStation F1 series) Arcade racers (e.g. Project Gotham Racing series)


 * Pure simulators accurately recreate a certain racing series, with no special features. They are as realistic as possible, because that is the one aim in mind.
 * Feature-filled simulators are almost as realistic as pure simulators, but with extra features to make the game more interesting to play. (Gran Turismo and Forza Motorsport are very realistic, but try to remain interesting to play.)
 * Semi-simulators are filled with features like feature-filled simulators, but are less realistic, either to make the game more playable, or because the resources required to make a simulator cannot be acquired. (The Colin McRae rally series is a semi-simulator otherwise it would be unplayable by most people.)
 * Arcade racers have a special physics engine in order to make playing the game easy or fun in one or more aspects. (Project Gotham Racing makes drifting relatively easy, Ridge Racer and Daytona USA feature very unique physics to make them fun to play.)

The two games that are being moved most often are Gran Turismo and Forza Motorsport, because few people can agree which category they belong in. The new category should hopefully contain them. --81.178.228.60 18:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Love it! This is the best idea to ever come from an anon IP address! 阿修羅96 20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Note: this idea was from me while not signed in:--GM matthew 21:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I knew there was a catch... 阿修羅96 21:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the fourth category... Can someone actually add info, about what games should be adressed as feature-filled sims, except GT and Forza? Echad 16:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

GT and Forza are semi-simulators because they both have a simplified physics engine in order to keep the cars easy to drive by just about anyone, so that the game sells well. This is the first priority for Microsoft and Sony and not realism because the stakes are high. Also the cars must be easy to drive with a gamepad because very few console owners have steering wheels. I think it would help if you could please please tell us:
 * 1) what simracing community are you active in so that we can see who exactly is calling GT and Forza "simulators", and how knowledgeable are they;
 * 2) which of the games currently included in the "Simulators" section have you actually played with realistic/simulation settings;
 * 3) What exactly does this "feature-filled" nonsense mean, why does GT or Forza belong into that fictional category as opposed to GTR 2 for example? What are those extra features, and how exactly do they warrant a new simulation category? (you are of course aware that categories such as "simulators of old F1 series", "simulators with great soundtracks", "simulators sold on DVDs", "simulators largely hyped as realistic by disinterested console manufacturers" could be created). Also, who says GTR 2 is not trying or not being interesting to play? Staniol 00:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Arcade/simulator category crisis
From what has been stated on this talk page, I would now say that even my "four category" idea is a poor one. But with that idea gone what should we do about this section of the article? Should we leave the lists as they are? Should we actually try my idea? Should we actually reduce it to two categories, removing the semi-simulator category? Or should the lists be deleted altogether? I do not know, although right now the deletion idea actually sounds best to me. I would suggest outlining the current three categories, and giving them each a description and a couple of examples without actually creating full lists, as this debate has seriously got to stop. How can any racing game be defined as a simulator, arcade racer, or something in-between? It is a matter of opinion, not fact. And BTW, I am not from any sim-racing community, my suggestion was merely an idea to help the article, with no desire for the idea to be actually used, but with the intention of settling this debate once and for all.

In short: I am now against my own idea of using four categories, and instead suggest removing the section altogether or changing the lists into descriptions of each category with some clear examples. Otherwise, the debate on where games like GT and Forza belong will never stop. --GM matthew (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Stupid
Why Racer is listed here as a simulation game, while Gran Turismo as a semi-simulation? Here listed, that GT cannot qualify to a full-time-simulation without damage... So why Racer can? I think everyone will agree, that AI in Racer is much worse (it is hard to lose to AI on the same car) and the physics in Racer allow to eliminate your opponents by colliding with them, so they will spin out of course, but you will surprisingly stay... Such maneuver is mostly impossible in Gran Turismo (unless you bang them during the turn, but it is very difficult for you to stay on-track after that)... And BTW, Wikipedia is currently the only place to not call GT a simulator. Original research, eh? Isn't this AGAINST wikipedia policy? I suggest to either place Gran Turismo on the simulator list, or remove Racer from it. Echad 16:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know why Racer was in the sim category in the first place. I personally see it more like a sand box game (regarding modding) with quite mediocre physics model. Wiki the only place not call GT4 a sim? I'm afraid you are quite wrong. Based on what original research GT4 should be put to the simulation category? Based on what the developers of the game says? Is that very reliable source? I think the semi-sim category is quite right place for it, it is mixture of some simulation aspects and arcade driving games. It has too many shortcuts taken in the physics model to be so called full-blown sim. Timppis 22:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read carefully, you would understand, what I said... On the page there is a statement of GT being "widely regarded as simulator, but this and that prevents it to be so"... This statement WAS the original research, glad that it's gone. If you played any GT game, you would see, that it contains both "Arcade" and "Simulation" mode, and the biggest difference is not the physics model, but the things such as: championships, license tests, money making, buying cars (one of most interesting aspects was the very real-life element of buying some old used car and turning it into a racing vehicle), upgrading and tuning them up... It even has car wash and oil change! Car damage was in GT2, although only performance was affected. It was removed due to no career repair mode. Most "simulation" games don't let any part of tuning, especially to the extent GT does it, nor the license tests. And about "limited physics" I think that it is better for car not to fall on its roof at all, that magically reapearring at the middle of the road after that, as it is in most other games. GT is BOTH the sim and an arcade, not a SEMI.

BTW Racer is on the comparison page also, and GT is not... I do not suggest to remove it from there, as it contains some valuable info for the people, who chose what game to play... Instead, I suggest to list what simulation elements are present in Gran Turismo, and all other "semi-sims" as you call them. Just for the encypedic poit of view.

And the last thing... Compared to GT, NFS: Porsche Unleashed is full-blown arcade. They are not belong on the same list. Echad 23:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand. I also removed that statement yesterday because it was quite offensive (and the other games on listing do not have additional information either).


 * I still think GT(4) is more like a mixture of sim and arcade. It has simply too many shortcomings in the physics model, especially in the tyres physics (simple example: how is it possible that you can't do a burnout with relatively powerful RWD car?). True, many other games/sims does not have tuning but that "level 1-level 2-level 3" kind of upgrade system has some issues regarding realism. Lacking damage is quite obvious but it is not the only issue with GT4.


 * Personally (!) I think much of the reputation of GT4 being superior simulation is because of the succesful marketing by Sony. Starting from the "real driving simulation" slogan under the official logo. Most PC sim games are made purely for "niche" market, for gamers who are very devoted for playing mostly only racing sims. On the contrary GT4 is made for masses, wide spectrum of gamers - otherwise it would never sell millions of copies. This makes lots of different kind of limitations regarding realism and the physics, for example how hard the game can be and how playable it must be with a pad controller.


 * What comes to Porsche Unleashed, I think it needs to be taken into account that when the game was released, it's quite old game (released 2000) but back then it was quite realistic compared to the casual arcade driving games. I wouldn't mind putting it to the arcade category but because the semi-sim category is in the middle, it has widest spectrum of games.


 * Of course there can't be no real research (if not then purely in mathematical (physics) aspects?) about what game belongs to what category but at least what the developers say about their own game is quite meaningless - of course every game developer is saying their game is the most beautiful, most realistic and the best ever. I'm not trying to be the judge here but I think people who haven't played some of the games listed in the sim category (other than Racer, I don't know have you) can't see the "whole" picture. Timppis 00:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now I'm sure you haven't played GT before the 4th part. I played GT1, GT2 and GT4. From the games listed here as "simulators", I played GTR2 and Richard Burns Rally (although for very little time, as I'm not a rally fan). Haven't played others, but I would like to try. I played most of PS and PS2 racers, never tried most of PC ones and never raced online.

I now barely remember, what tire variations are in GT4, but in GT2 there are special "simulation" tires, which offer most realistic experience. Try different tires in GT4, maybe this will help... Or the brake tuning. (This is not in defending GT, just FYI)

You joke about Porche Unleashed being realistic in year 2000! Gran Turismo was released in 1997 and GT2 in 1999! At these years GT was one of the most realistic not-F1 simulator game. They just try not to change the game engine dramatically, because it would turn off most fans. PU should not be putted on arcade category still, because it's not a pure arcade, and I think the best way to present this list would be to implement new category, such as in upper post, to differ feature-filled sims from the pure ones. I would have done this myself, but I barely played the games present in the semi-sim category.

Level 1-2-3 tuning is just parts for beginners, amateurs and professionals. If a beginner will buy the last suspension set and mess with it alot, he will usually spoil the car. And the tuning feature is not based on buying upgrades, but on adjusting these springs, dampers, gear ratios, etc..

P.S. And why do you think I call GT a sim because an advertisments? It is not a "pure sim", as it has some arcade elements (just Arcade Mode is enogh), as some action game with some puzzles can not be called a "pure action" game. I really suggest adding the Feature-Filled Simulators to the list.

P.P.S.

It is still MOST realistic in a field of _not sports_ cars. Just tell me about any realistic game, where you can race station wagons, jeeps, road cars, historic stuff up to the first ever car AS WELL AS grand tourers, rally, supercars... Most games are focused on single category (such as Rally or NASCAR racers) and representation of actual championships.


 * You say you've played GTR2 and Richard Burns Rally, but have you played them on realistic settings? Probably not, since you would need a steering wheel in order to drive those cars with all arcade aids turned off, and you say you don't usually play PC simulators so you probably don't have a PC steering wheel. The question is then how qualified are you to address the accuracy of their physics? Btw, i played GT2, GT3 and GT4, none of them are simulators though GT3 and GT4 could fit into the semi-simulation category. But that's not just my oppinion, on every simracing site I've seen the GT series is regarded as semi-simulation or even arcade. And I mean simracing sites, not casual player sites and general discussion forums (those people are not aware of simracing and therefore can't make a valid comparison), nor fan sites made by 14 year old kids playing Forza on daddy's Xbox. You also say "Most games are focused on single category (such as Rally or NASCAR racers) and representation of actual championships" - well that's because they try to accurately model those specific cars, they go for quality over quantity, they don't just hire 398234089 3D modellers like Polyphony and tweak the same car physics to handle a little different. Also if you can please sign your comments, it makes discussions easier to follow, thanks. Staniol 00:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose the addition of a "Feature-Filled" category on the grounds of it being bogus, as I've stated in the "Arcade/simulator categories" discussion thread. You seem keen to include these 2 games into a category of their own but I see no reason for that. If you can elaborate on those features that warrant such a category in the thread above I would appreciate it. Staniol 00:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made my own comment above here. --GM matthew (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you talk like physics is the only thing that matters... =\ I don't feel the TCS/ESC/Anti-lock brake _switches_ in options menu make up for realism, it is really much more real to actually install these systems on the car itself. "How qualified I am to adress their physycs"?... You make me laugh, you need quality technicians to adress accuracy of _games_? About "feature-filled" cat ask the other guy... I just can't stand Gran Turismo being in the same category as Need for Speed: PU... It is stupid. Echad (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

AND, WTFU is with Racer being sim, while GT is only semi??? Racer is much _less_ realistic! Echad (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What? Make you laugh? Are you talking to me? I don't know if you are, but I'm sorry, the actual debate of where each game actually belongs is besides the point. You've just argued that GT is more realistic than Racer. Many others would say the opposite. It is virtually impossible to actually classify which category each game belongs in, and that's why I then suggested that the lists should be removed altogether. The only way the lists can stay is if there is an official company that gives each racing game a rating based on what sort of realism it is aiming for. And there is no such company, so the lists have got to go. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a furious debate turning into a war.

And back to the debate briefly, any Need for Speed game wouldn't make the semi-simulator list anyway, it is more of an arcade racer. I was assuming that physics were the main decisive factor for whether games were simulators or not. If they aren't then what is?

The trouble is, it will probably be the case that no matter how realistic games like GT and Forza actually are, some will still see them as semi-simulators.

I am going to allow until February 2008 for someone here to state a suitable reason why the lists of simulators/semi-sims/arcade racers should stay. Otherwise I will remove them myself. I am going to make this very clear: this debate has seriously got to stop RIGHT NOW. PERIOD. --GM matthew (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I have recently observed that Echad may have been talking to Staniol instead of me. Nevertheless, my statements still stand, and my February 2008 deadline remains. --GM matthew (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, almost the entire article is in a mess, so if neccessary I will actually rewrite the entire article. It really is that bad. Despite this, the simulator/arcade category debate is still by far the worst problem here. --GM matthew (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There is one day left before my February 2008 deadline, and no one has replied at all. If anyone has any objections to me removing the category lists, say so NOW, or I will replace them. --GM matthew (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been busy recently, and as a result the lists are still here. Do not expect them to stay for much longer, as I may remove them any time soon. Also, I notice that no one has made a response of any kind since November 28. --GM matthew (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say delete the titles for the lists. No reason the games can't still be listed.  Since there is no clear way to know what game is simulating what real life aspect, and some people think physics needs to be simulated and others think having the ability to wash your car is more of a real life simulation, there just isn't a clear way to define what is what.  So I say just remove the categories and leave all the games listed.  The only other solution I can see is having a 'Simulation: Physics' category for the games that have real-life simulated physics, but don't let you wash your car.  It looks like the best solution is no categories and just list all the games without trying to classify them.  This page and the comparison page are simply useless on wikipedia as there will forever be arguements over where GT belongs and other games like it.  (Why is Forza and GT even in different categories?  That makes no sense, but then again, you can't wash your car in Forza so I guess it's not really a racing simulation.)  And the simulation page is just about 100% original research by fans of certain simulations who determine on their own what the game has or doesn't have.  So in the end, I say keep the games listed here and remove the categories.  More important than these lists though, I think there should be some links to community websites as they will do a better job than wikipedia can ever do, and let people make up their own minds.--Wes Richards (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Polyphony is not a massive company, and Gran Turismo IS a semi-simulation to simulation series, far more so than Forza or PGR or anything it competes with. Certain features (Damage for one) are non-existant since you cannot dynamically calculate proper damage physics on any computer that exists. And, on top of that statement, damage is really quite useless. In actual real world racing, taking out a car is a disqualifying event in most cases, and as such is something you should not do in a game. Now, adding such rules would result in a pretty piss poor game as it would remove fun. I personally drive a stock 98 Impreza. I have tried the forza and GT models in-game to see what ones handle the most similarly to my real world car and without a doubt the answer is GT. I don't drift in real life every time I take a hairpin at 30 and accelerate after the apex. A sim game should reflect this. To the comment of ultra high horsepower RR/FR/MR cars not having wheel spin I will let you in on a little secret: They do, and tons to boot. The difference is the game assumes that since the joystick is in a centered position that means your wheels are centered in game, if you grab a Viper and rev high/release ebrake and turn you will spin out something awful. Especially with TCS off. GT4 added deviation to burn outs so you do lose center, but it is only minimal to appease people who think they know cars. Damage was added to GT5 due to popular demand though I promise you I won't be seeing any such effect on my cars since I make it a point to not crash since every hundredth of a second counts for the win in S class races.

Now, all these are reasons it is a sim game. In all honesty mathematically and empirically, it is a sim racer EXCEPT: The grid size. Real GT races are 20+ grid races and Gran Turismo uses 8 car grids (up to GT4). This is an arcade title element and is the single fact that will keep the series in the semi sim purgatory.

And fuel for flame: Drift is not sim at all, cars will never tend towards drift unless you drive for it and tune for it. For this reason forza will never be a sim title. Ever. And, I don't understand the auto brake assists in so many new titles, i want to drive my car not just steer it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NinjaQuick (talk • contribs) 22:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "In actual real world racing, taking out a car is a disqualifying event in most cases, and as such is something you should not do in a game. Now, adding such rules would result in a pretty piss poor game as it would remove fun."
 * Not to fan the flames of an old discussion, but isn't that pretty much the defining difference between the 'hardcore' simulation and the 'softcore' semi-simulation categories? In a hardcore sim, if something is real it often takes precedence over 'fun' in the sense of being a game. The softcore sims take a solid simulation foundation and apply layers of 'game' on top of it. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Racing games: Violence?
I've noticed many racing games that contains a violent content. For example, MotorStorm was the first T-Rated game, and on the back, it contains violence. How come racing games contains violence, just like any other action games? Professional Gamer 20:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GranTrak10 screenshot.jpg
Image:GranTrak10 screenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-simulation category...
That category should not be used. The qualifiers for it are stepping on the toes of other categories. Normally Sega Rally is considered "arcade" and Enthusia is a "sim". The middle-ground is simply too gray to be considered a real categorization.SuperSonicTH (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DaytonaUSA 4.jpg
The image Image:DaytonaUSA 4.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:Virtua Racing screenshot 2007
 * Image:Pole0000.png
 * Image:Outrun-arcadescreenshot.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --21:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirection Suggested
I suggest to redirect Manx TT, that is an red article, to Manx TT Superbike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.195.242 (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Manx TT
I edit link to the Manx TT to Manx TT Superbike. Now it can used.

Enjoy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.195.242 (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggest rename
I suggest renaming this article to Racing video game, since it's about video games. SharkD (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Horse Racing Games
I think this article should mention something about Horse Racing Games such as Derby Stallion 64, etc... Tavatar (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Need For Speed Series
Considering this series reached total sales over 100 million in September 2009, it should be included here, since the series has been the most popular in terms of sales figures.

Need_for_Speed

Rcgldr (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Only First Person / Third person perspectives?
So, whats with racing games in the topdown/birdperspectives?

Today nearly all racing games are surely in the 3d perspectives but games like speedster, supersonic racers are nontheless racing games. greets, tlgamer — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBK2011 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Weapon-based racing games
I was wondering, doesn't Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit (2010) count as a weapon-based racing game? I guess it has the properties to be counted as one. Though not many weapons, large part of the game brings weapons into importance while racing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKT27 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

F1 201x = arcade?
Can someone explain why F1 201x is classified as an arcade game - and for example Gran Turismo or Forza are classified as semi-simulation? In my opinion all three are semi-simulation; at least GT and Forza are not more simulation than F1, are they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.92.33.51 (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This whole semi simulation thing will only confuse the readers more- as we have to understand that people with detailed knowledge about racing games wont come for reference to this page, but people who are freshers for the genre will. Typically one would call rFactor 2 a simulation and Gran Turismo 5, Forza 4 or F1 201x as semi simulations, Why ? rFactor 2 as far as car handling physics and tire dynamics go is the most authentic simulation, but graphically is not as good as GT5 or Forza 4- now is graphics not important in replication reality - which in term means simulation. Also most cars in rFactor or similar community developed games are developed by people who has no relation with the Car Manufacturers as there is no license accusation involved, so how real or sim can a community developed car for rFactor or GTR 2 be ? When they are not even authenticated by their real manufacturers. Also we should know that worldwide Gt5 Forza 4 and F1 201x are marketed by developers, fans, sellers and review websites like virtualr or insidesimracing as SIMULATIONS. So confusing newbies with an Wikipedia page which calls these games semi sims or arcades simply seems unfair to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.nathan (talk • contribs) 16:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Kart racing game
I'm currently working on a draft for a separate article for kart racing games, as sources often make a distinction between those and racing games. The book Level Up! sees the two genres as subgenres of vehicle simulation, rather than kart racing as a subgenre of racing games. AI Game Engine Programming describes kart racing to much more detail than how it quickly lists some racing-style sports. It is the only sub-genre of racing games Game Engine Architect goes into detail about. I also found some decent web references. I can't say it is particularly much right now, but I'm still working on it. If people know things to add to the current article - it would be excellent if there could be more reliable sources - please do.

The draft can be found here: User:Maplestrip/Kart racing game ~ Maplestrip (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Because of a lack of response, I put it on the mainspace. Notability isn't an issue, but finding some more good dedicated references is hard. More on the talk page of the article at hand. ~Maplestrip (chat) 14:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Split?
Should someone try to split this article? A huge portion of it is a semi-decent list that should be incredibly useful, but this article isn't supposed to be a "List of racing video games." I won't be able to turn this into two good-looking pages on my own, though, and would love some help. ~Maplestrip (chat) 14:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Add section noting different win conditions.
In my experience there are two different ways to win a racing game. Position-based: wherein your goal is to cross the finish line first, which always has other racers. And, Time-based: Wherein your goal is to cross the finished line before time runs out, in which if other racers are present their purpose is simply to slow you down. I believe a section noting this as well as the history of the two subgenres would be useful.
 * Sounds good, though are there reliable sources to build this section with? ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Racing video game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110615221800/http://www.gamesradar.com/f/gamings-most-important-evolutions/a-20101008102331322035/p-2 to http://www.gamesradar.com/f/gamings-most-important-evolutions/a-20101008102331322035/p-2
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110615221817/http://www.gamesradar.com/f/gamings-most-important-evolutions/a-20101008102331322035/p-3 to http://www.gamesradar.com/f/gamings-most-important-evolutions/a-20101008102331322035/p-3
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100528151721/http://www.gamespot.com:80/features/6148640/index.html to http://www.gamespot.com/features/6148640/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Racing video game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120708183927/http://www.gamespot.com/features/6103365/p-3.html to http://www.gamespot.com/features/6103365/p-3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130320230656/http://uk.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/video/15influential/p13_01.html to http://uk.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/video/15influential/p13_01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Racing video game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141211113252/http://www.gamelitist.com/2012/06/the-kart-racing-genre/ to http://www.gamelitist.com/2012/06/the-kart-racing-genre/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Monaco GP
Monaco GP from 1979 is an amazing game for its time. Should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.192.120 (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"Upcoming racing video games" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Upcoming racing video games. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 18 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 17:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Simplexity22 (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Racing video game → Racing game – "Racing game" is the WP:COMMONNAME and pretty much universally refers to video games. Racing game already redirects here, so we don't seem to be concerned about disambiguating from other sorts of racing games (ie events known in real life as "races"). This also brings the article in line with other video game genre articles such as platform game, shooter game, fighting game, action game, adventure game, etc. Popcornfud (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral As said by the hatnote, there is also Race game, so maybe Racing game just needs disambiguation.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The hatnote already takes care of that imo. Popcornfud (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes but the hatnote doesn't appear in Google results, the whole point of WP:CRITERIA is to find titles that don't send people to the wrong article. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and WP:CONCISE. Iffy★Chat -- 15:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as not WP:PRECISE and there are several meanings to the phrase "racing game". I suggest a DAB at that title. -- Netoholic @ 16:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as not WP:PRECISE per "racing game". In ictu oculi (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by this link - so there's book on horse racing and a book on car racing but pages and pages of books about video games...? The video game genre appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. Popcornfud (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Obviously the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Race game did have its own disambiguation page and we can have one for racing games too like racing game (disambiguation), but the video game genre should take the most direct racing game namespace. OceanHok (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as not WP:PRECISE per "racing game" as well... Roberth Martinez (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the second time someone has posted that Google link. Going by the first few pages of results, it produces two books that aren't to do with video games (both of which are book titles - The Racing Game). Everything else is about video games. Popcornfud (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the fact that vast majority of links in the Google search the opposers are presenting are actually for video games appears to me to actually be evidence that the video game genre is the primary topic. Also, unless someone plans to make an article for either of the books means that we currently have no other articles that can be called racing games which would make the case against moving the title purely hypothetical.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support There are no other "games" of the "racing" variety that compete with being the primary topic. English is my native language and despite race games apparently being a genre of board games, I am completely unfamiliar with that term. I don't understand the arguments being made above with the google search link. So per COMMONNAME and PRIMARYTOPIC and CONCISE the move makes sense. TarkusAB talk / contrib 23:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support "Racing game" is clearly the COMMONNAME (I don't think I've ever heard the phrase "racing video game" outside of Wikipedia), and the oppose votes have failed to convince me that natural disambiguation is needed here.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Based on what we have, the aforementioned “racing game” book linked should be the disambiguation and “racing game” should be the video game article. Direct the readers where they want to go, and it’s pretty clear to me a majority who type in “racing game” are probably looking for video games.  Red Phoenix  talk  15:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Makes sense to have the "video game" specification; "racing game" could mean a variety of things. Wakemeup38 (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you give some examples? I’m asking since so far the only attempts to provide evidence for such a claim was a Google search which did show that there were two books titled the racing game (that don’t have Wikipedia articles) but also demonstrated that every other entry was about video games strongly indicating that this is the primary topic for the term.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Daytona USA Vs. Ridge Racer
"In 1993, Namco released Ridge Racer, and thus began the polygonal war of driving games. Sega later released Daytona USA, one of the first games to feature filtered, texture-mapped polygons.[22] " Didn't Daytona USA come out first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:FC02:B82D:EC6A:92A8:A20:6222 (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but Virtua Racer does predate Ridge Racer. Indrian (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia it self.
 * Ridge Racer:
 * Arcade
 * JP: 30 October 1993
 * Daytona USA
 * Arcade
 * JP: August 1993

Somehing isnt adding up here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.105.188 (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia page for Daytona USA is wrong. It cites to two sources for the release date, a book by Ken Horowitz and an issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly.  The Horowitz book actually has the correct date, March 1994, but confuses the issue by referring to a limited Japanese release in August 1993.  Japanese sources do not mention such a release, which if it actually happened would have been merely a trade show debut or a location test of a prototype, not the actual release date.  The EGM issue is not reporting on the release of the game, its reporting on the game's appearance at the JAMMA Show, which is basically the E3 of the Japanese coin-operated amusement industry.  I'll go ahead and fix this.  Thanks for pointing it out. Indrian (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It still says 1993 on the opening paragraph of the Daytona article. For some reason it isn't letting me edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:FC02:B82D:EC6A:92A8:A20:6222 (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, missed that one. Thanks! Indrian (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

frameless — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.242.115.246 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)