Thank you for the constructive feedback but i'm done with this one. You cant fix something if it isn't broken - and the problem here is my game is doing pretty much what I actually wanted it to do - save a few physics elements I hadn't got around to yet. The problem here is the game concept - nobody wants unrealistic gameplay in first person, they want to know it's been written with a proper physics engine to get that generic "i've got a computer simulated race game" feel of realism that I personally loath.
I plan to carry on not making any attempts at a serious race game in the full knowledge I cant possibly hope to satisfy my own standards on the subject, but next time I attempt a fun driving game I wont make the mistake I did here of blurring the line to simulation and fix the camera very firmly in the corner and I will keep the physics very arcade gamelike so that the distinction is made.
It's either that or write a game with a physics engine to get that generic modern race game feel and pretend it's totally realistic and call it Gran Tourismo 4. I'll be sure not to even manage to get the top speeds right and only allow play on a joypad, fail to comprehend what multi-link suspension does, miss-understand the term power to weight ratio and instead focus on top end torque as a measure of a cars straitline performance, and i'll modify the cars performance in their class based upon corporate sponsorship (and how many times I can get the player to say skyline in one sentence).
I may sound bitter, I guess maybe I am - but i'm angry at my own judgement for completely failing to capture any gameplay in something I produced. I want to have a higher standard than that.
By this stage, in my idyllic world, a product with my name on it should show it's potential by now, and on the evidence of this thread this project doesn't have potential and instead has a list of complaints. There's no "wow" factor, something i've too arrogantly grown accustomed too over the years, I needed to mess this up just to be reminded I dont have a middas touch.
The reason is simple: I enjoyed playing with it myself and then I forgot to satisfy what people who play games actually want.
This game isn't broken, it conforms to it's design. It's a bad design.
I plan to carry on not making any attempts at a serious race game in the full knowledge I cant possibly hope to satisfy my own standards on the subject, but next time I attempt a fun driving game I wont make the mistake I did here of blurring the line to simulation and fix the camera very firmly in the corner and I will keep the physics very arcade gamelike so that the distinction is made.
It's either that or write a game with a physics engine to get that generic modern race game feel and pretend it's totally realistic and call it Gran Tourismo 4. I'll be sure not to even manage to get the top speeds right and only allow play on a joypad, fail to comprehend what multi-link suspension does, miss-understand the term power to weight ratio and instead focus on top end torque as a measure of a cars straitline performance, and i'll modify the cars performance in their class based upon corporate sponsorship (and how many times I can get the player to say skyline in one sentence).
I may sound bitter, I guess maybe I am - but i'm angry at my own judgement for completely failing to capture any gameplay in something I produced. I want to have a higher standard than that.
By this stage, in my idyllic world, a product with my name on it should show it's potential by now, and on the evidence of this thread this project doesn't have potential and instead has a list of complaints. There's no "wow" factor, something i've too arrogantly grown accustomed too over the years, I needed to mess this up just to be reminded I dont have a middas touch.
The reason is simple: I enjoyed playing with it myself and then I forgot to satisfy what people who play games actually want.
This game isn't broken, it conforms to it's design. It's a bad design.