/vr/ - Retro Games

>>5399770
rather than saying SMK is much harder overall I should be specific and say it's much harder to stay on the track.

Also the Starman arguably breaks the driving in this game.

It's a kart game, what do you think? These games aren't designed for skilled play, they are designed to be instantly picked up by anyone even if they have no experience with driving games. And they're designed to have a small skill gap between players of different skill levels by being simplistic, unpunishing and via artificial means like items. Skilled play is the accidental end result of various glitches or exploits that people have dug up over the years. They're good at being casual mindless driving games but not much else.

>>5400139
I'm suspicious of everything you said

>>5400294
Play a real racer then, or even a proper arcade racer like Initial D arcade stage

>>5400079
you're a retard

>>5400139
>realistic racer babby throwing a tantrum about the objectively better game
Not true at all. Powersliding was specifically designed around advanced and skilled play so I don't know how you're saying that. I will give you one thing, that the multiplayer is very luck-based due to items, this is why the developers suggested time trial as the main competitive mode. It has more skill than any real racer, especially if you're counting what community it has built up.

If you want to get in the top 100 MK64 records for any course you have to you have to have every tiny little detail down and still might not be able for it. But even at the top they make mistakes, they move slightly differently every time so it's always different, pixel-perfect gameplay is not possible.

>>5400327
t. has never touched a simracer
Analog clutch, throttle and brake control alone has more depth and skill than your shitty power slides, and Mario Shart is only challenging at the highest levels, simracers are even hard against AI and are way more optimized to the point where pro racers get btfo

>>5400317
I will accept that there are proper driving games that require skill and that Mario Kart isn't exactly in that league. It's more of a casual party game especially more recent entries in the series with the over-powered items. But how can you say skilled play is an unintended consequence of exploiting glitches? Sure you can jump over walls in Wario Stadium, but denouncing all acquired skill and claiming the gameplay is mindless seems unreasonable.

>>5400325
no u

>>5400338
It's a bit of an exaggeration and talking more about the series as a whole than MK64 in particular, see snaking, blue shell avoiding strats in DS and the insane skips in Wii

>>5400139
>>5400325
>>5400337
you seem mad. Life's not going you're way huh?

>>5400346
Alright snaking is a thing which I did not remember. I'm pretty sure in Double Dash if the term snaking can also apply here (I'm assuming you are referring to snaking in 64) I was really good at it. I don't consider it an unintended strategy in that case.

>>5400337
>t. has never touched a simracer
You dumbass - "t. " means "the person writing the post", ie. YOURSELF. So you're saying YOU have never touched a simracer. The only way saying "t. " for someone else makes sense would is if you greentexted it.

Also you're wrong again, I've played so many sim racers on dreamcast, gamecube, PS2, N64 and they all get kind of boring after a while. The main bottleneck to the skill I find is that they have no powersliding. You never straight decelerate normally in MK64, you have to use a bunch of other much more complicated ways to get your kart around the bend like snaking in just the right way, hopping or similar.

Look at this list of shit you have to do and compare it to your "analogue clutch, throttle and brake control" nonsense and say which is more complicated: http://www.mariokart64.com/mk64/mt.shtml

To put things short you're a fool and have no idea what you're talking about.

Also you are wrong about glitches, there is no glitches in normal play. In some of the courses you can use shortcuts (some of which come from glitches), but they're not a part of the main skill of the game.

>>5400338
This is a different anon to the guy you were replying to. I'm the guy you were replying to here >>5400369

>>5400327
ey bro thanks for you input in my thread

>>5400369
Analog clutch throttle and brake is simpler and more intuitive but combined with proper car physics simulation it leads to more depth, you simply never have to consider weight distribution or tire slip angle, or anything else in MK because it's not simulated and there's a smaller range of possible outcomes as an end result and less carry over from one action to the next. Then you combine that with the insane tracks of something like rally driving and you've got absurd skill ceilings. You've got your power sliding there and much, much more. They have way more strategy too with tuning and car part wear, along with greater interactivity between players due to harsh punishing physics. The fact that you only played console shit is telling. In short you have no clue what you're talking about, launch Richard Burns Racing and try setting some respectable times then come back to Mario Shart and realize how utterly dull it is.

>>5400337
bro what makes you think Mario Kart is supposed to even resemble a driving simulator? It's supposed to feel like controlling an RC car. In no way does that mean it doesn't involve skill at a high level. Apples and oranges

>>5400369

>>5400390
You are dumb. "range of possible outcomes" wtf are you talking about. As has been said it's apples and oranges, but every millisecond in MK64 counts and you wouldn't get a world record in it if your house depended on it.

>>5400390
>>5400434
honestly to the guy's credit I think he made some valid points in this. I just think the fact he keeps saying Mario Shart betrays him to be an immature baby whose opinion I should disregard

>>5400434
Game states you idiot, what else? You have full analog controls for everything which by itself means it's inherently more difficult to do the exact same action twice compared to digital. Not only that, the cars have physics simulation so those tiny differences in inputs matter a lot and have an effect on other inputs. There is a reason drivers recommend to see brakes as a tool for weight transfer rather than just a way of slowing down, because it has very real effects on the car and any further inputs you make.

The MK page is downright pitiful compared to what you would find in sim racing. You can watch hour+ long videos by professional racers who break down a single circuit in detail and then apply that knowledge to sim racers, and that assumes you already know your shit when it comes to driving technique which is a very deep topic in itself that you could study for a long time. All that Mario Shart joking aside, you're being really dumb if you think that MK's simplistic driving model has even a fraction of the depth and skill of sims.

>>5399770
Nope, it's a huge step backwards from the first game.

>>5400139
You're the same fucker from the last thread about MK64 who spewed all of this exact same elitist crap. Neck yourself.

>>5399770
MK64 is both a bad Mario Kart game and a bad racing game.
Stick to either F-Zero X, Diddy Kong Racing, CTR, or any of the successive Mario Kart games (hell, even Super Mario Kart is better than it).

>>5400637
Stop, you are retarded. You cannot call it "inherently more difficult". Both of these games have more "game states" than chess, yet chess is hardly less difficult/complicated. You cannot compare them because they're different. Also, ironically, the entire reason why there's so many ways of playing in your shitty basic-ass generic sim racers that noone has ever heard of is because the game has been nowhere near maxed out because it's such a small group of tards that ever gave a shit about getting a good time in them. There is no way possible you can call it more complicated than MK64, so stfu tard.

You seem to put a lot of credit in how you can drive a sim the way you drive real cars.... big whoop, that's the entire FUCKING POINT of the sim. That's why sims are usually shitty in terms of real gameplay and skill, because they're emphasizing simulation rather than real skill and fun.

Just shut the FUCK up now, ok? You're not going to get away with your "theory" that those games are somehow more complex than MK64 so stop repeating it and pulling out bs like that. You are wrong in every possible way.

>>5400369
>You dumbass - "t. " means "the person writing the post", ie. YOURSELF. So you're saying YOU have never touched a simracer. The only way saying "t. " for someone else makes sense would is if you greentexted it.
I can smell the virginity and Cheeto dust through my screen

>>5402759
>You cannot call it "inherently more difficult"

I can call it inherently more difficult to get the same exact inputs because the range of states is much greater. The reason I'd call the genre more difficult overall is because of what I said after I posted that. I can compare them because they are the same genre of game, with the same goals, are played very similarly and even share many of the same fundamentals.

>Also, ironically, the entire reason why there's so many ways of playing in your shitty basic-ass generic sim racers that noone has ever heard of is because the game has been nowhere near maxed out because it's such a small group of tards that ever gave a shit about getting a good time in them.

You've got no clue. Richard Burns Rally has been grinded to a downright insane degree, you can find times that will blow your mind, and Dirt Rally arguably even more so. It has some of the most intense competition around because not only is it enough of a sim to draw in serious players but it's also very popular. You won't even get to the low 1000s in any track you play I can guarantee, nevermind actual top spots. The reason you think this is because sim racers are detached from the usual gaming community and don't interact with retards who play Mario Shart much. But just because they don't show up at GDQ doesn't mean they don't exist.

>There is no way possible you can call it more complicated than MK64, so stfu tard.

Oh but they are, significantly so. Check out a very basic guide on set ups (which vary depending on car, track, surface, driver preference, goal etc) in Dirt Rally which has simplistic tuning when compared to more hardcore sims like Richard Burns Rally.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=478035750

>b-but they're not fun!

Pathetic.

>>5402680
Maybe if that last thread was like 3-4 months ago otherwise no, probably just someone else with common sense and enough free time to waste preaching truth to know-nothing Mario Sharters.

>>5402818
NECK.
YOURSELF.
Fucking seriously. Mario kart games are fun. No one gives a flying fuck about your 'realistic' racing sims or your personal disdain for racing games that don't fit your fedora tipping preferences. Go sit in your old beat up car you never finished restoring and rub the stick shift sensually until you get off if you want to feel like your driving a real car so bad.

>>5399770
>Is the driving good in this game?
Absolutely not.

>>5404642
Why not?

>>5404185
O he mad
I didn't even say it isn't fun, I just described it realistically as a dumb casual party racing game you play with people who don't play racers which it does a fine enough job at. Not my fault Mario Sharters immediately get upset when faced with the reality and want to justify their time investment by saying laughable things like it being more complex than real racers, all while knowing jack shit about them

>>5399770
> I played by holding A, never braking, never releasing the gas, and power sliding probably too much.
That's pretty much what I used to do. Always accelerate. Try to get the slide boost as much as possible. Avoid the course obstacles. There's not a lot of depth to the single player game.

>Also I know the AI in MK64 is imperfect.
People get frustrated because when the AI is behind it gets advantages. But if you are good then the competitive AI just adds to the fun. Otherwise you would be lapping them and it would be boring.

SMK's AI had its own cheapness. The AI in that game couldn't pick up items, each character had a predetermined special move that they could use seemingly whenever they decided to. For Mario and Luigi this was the star/invincibility, and if they touched you will they used this you would spin out. MK64's AI is probably less cheap than that.

>>5405051
Everything you just said is complete garbage.

OP here
>>5404642
>>5404819
I may as well state I happen to think the driving is good. The thread was inspired by some thoughts of critique I had while overall enjoying the game
>>5405051
I agree with you the competitive AI in MK64 does make it more fun if you're good. I wouldn't say SMK has cheaper AI. It seems balanced imo for the CPU's to have one special item whilst being unable to pickup from item blocks, and the way they drive is more uniform, consistent and robust. I like the greater significance and consequence of bumping into racers in SMK, and that along with the need for releasing the gas and braking make it the superior driving game. But in MK64 I'm finding there is a more subtle and refined approach you can take with these same tactics of you so choose, it just isn't necessary to win which seems like a drawback imo. You can improve time and precision quite a lot if you enjoy grinding the game. I'm tending to believe the skill ceiling for MK64 can be quite high and should in theory no higher than a driving sim. They're just different to me.

>>5399770
MK64's driving model is completely different from the rest of the series and one of the pieces of source code I've most wanted to see. From a stop, if you hold A+B and hard right or left you will rotate in place like a tank... ??? I don't remember any game that lets you do that, much less another MK game.

>>5405576
it has a unique feel for the series but I can't put my finger on all of it