Next Driver | Forums

[ManoelM]

Yup, but in the multiplayer mode in DSF, when you host a private match you can set options for it and for example disable impuls, spawn or swap. You can't disable boost or shift however.

At least then everyone can just grab cars from the streets, and no Zonda or such (except if there's one of the road).

You guys are playing on X360/PS3 right? Would have been cool to make some matches. I'm playing on Mac however, didn't want to get a PS3 just for the game.

There's plenty of players online but no way to contact them... it would have been easier to organize private matches otherwise.

[ManoelM]

A cool idea for the game by the way: having various garages around the city, like in DSF, but each garage is a "brand" garage - for example in DSF there's like what... 20 car brands or something, and you could have say 60 garages (ranging from very small to huge) for each brand. Just like in real life, you would see a Chevrolet garage, a Dodge garage, an Audi garage with Audi's for sale everywhere and more expensive ones in the showroom - when I say showroom I just mean the cars behind the glass, like the downtown garage in DSF for example.

I said 60 garages so you can have for each brand 3 garages for example... and also used car garages, where you find different brands.

[PeaceMaker_101]

I don't know if we would really need any garages in the next game if it's just going to be like DSF. When you're able to shift into anyone's vehicle, what difference does it make to have garages. We should have a greater variety of traffic vehicles that we come across, which can fix the problem of seeing too many of the same vehicles over and over again.

Now that I mention it, I'm actually playing through GTA IV again (this time, to actually complete the entire game). Before, I only played a bit of it at my cousins' house and another time at a friends house, but I never got around to play through most of it. And now as I'm almost 50% of the way through the missions, I can honestly say that it's not nearly as interesting or fun as the previous GTA games. Rather than writing a whole set of paragraphs describing what I disliked about the game, I'll make a list of it:


- pretty lacking mission variety, especially with there being way less types of vehicles to use than in the previous GTA games
- an improved, but still flawed combat system, where shooting your enemies in a specific point of their bodies will not do realistic damage all the time
- not nearly as many activities to do for a city that's pretty huge; in others words, nothing but wide levels that are filled with no real sense of interactivity
- not many co-op game mechanics, for a game that went all in on the online multiplayer side
- a clunky, broken cover system, where, sometimes, your character might take cover whenever you don't want him/her to do so, or moving as slowly as he/she does when in cover
- eschew fun for realism, where your main character ends up flying out of a car or other vehicle after a big collision
- removed many side missions that were found in previous GTA games
- the huge emphasis on "realistic" physics at first may look amazing, only to end up feeling very annoying throughout the rest of the game
- sometimes gets confused about whether it should be a serious game or a funny one
- radio stations without many funny conversations & hardly any great music playing
- poor vehicle handling for not fitting in with its level design (has too many narrow paths and/or too much traffic to weave through for its driving physics)
- a city that's very depressing, gritty-looking, and whose colors are all washed out, making the city very uninteresting

Just a few things which took away a lot of fun that GTA IV could have been. It's definitely something that GTA V cannot afford to do again if it's going to succeed. And Driver, of course, would probably end up just as bad if it was just as worried about realism.

[ManoelM]

I don't know, I just like the idea of having garages with real logos of real car makers Maybe there's not even going to be a shift? I don't know if I actually even want it or not... I absolutely love it, but imagine a Driver like Driver 1. Basically you would start in the main menu and the car you'd be driving, you would be sitting in it all the time. And why not maybe even cars you can't get? In DSF, you can't get the Asym or the Monaco Cop, and that made people go nuts about them. In Driver 1 you couldn't drive the cars you see on the street. So why not also put indrivable cars on the roads, I mean licensed cars, and maybe Reflections can get more licenses for them because you can't take them and flip them (well you could still crash into them with another car). This is what made cars interesting for me in Driver 1 sometimes: cars you would only see in missions - very rare - I always made another save to go back to this mission and drive that car - and cars on the streets, I would drive beside them, follow them and watch them haha :P

[tope1983]

- pretty lacking mission variety, especially with there being way less types of vehicles to use than in the previous GTA games
- an improved, but still flawed combat system, where shooting your enemies in a specific point of their bodies will not do realistic damage all the time
- not nearly as many activities to do for a city that's pretty huge; in others words, nothing but wide levels that are filled with no real sense of interactivity
- not many co-op game mechanics, for a game that went all in on the online multiplayer side
- a clunky, broken cover system, where, sometimes, your character might take cover whenever you don't want him/her to do so, or moving as slowly as he/she does when in cover
- eschew fun for realism, where your main character ends up flying out of a car or other vehicle after a big collision
- removed many side missions that were found in previous GTA games
- the huge emphasis on "realistic" physics at first may look amazing, only to end up feeling very annoying throughout the rest of the game
- sometimes gets confused about whether it should be a serious game or a funny one
- radio stations without many funny conversations & hardly any great music playing
- poor vehicle handling for not fitting in with its level design (has too many narrow paths and/or too much traffic to weave through for its driving physics)
- a city that's very depressing, gritty-looking, and whose colors are all washed out, making the city very uninteresting
Just a few things which took away a lot of fun that GTA IV could have been. It's definitely something that GTA V cannot afford to do again if it's going to succeed. And Driver, of course, would probably end up just as bad if it was just as worried about realism.

interesting that I'm thinking absolutely different...
I really liked the approach of GTA IV to a more gritty and dirty look and to move away a bit of all the cartooney style of the previous games.
The more serious tone to everything, the subtile criticism of nowadays western society and of course all the touch of easter europe was great IMO.
I even liked the radio-stations, especially vladivostok FM, radio-broker, electro-choc, liberty rock radio and all the great commericals.
The vehicle handling and damage system was also greatly improved although I have to say, that after playing DSF and returning to GTA IV, rockstar's vehicle physics felt really weird and in fact quite cartoonish. So a lot to improve here for GTA V.

Unfortunately all these gritty, dirty, rusty design was what I LOVED in the driver series and now I am missing it since DPL, which was the first that went into the direction of the pre-GTA-IV titles.
DSF was really fun, I really liked the storyline that offered not only an innovative gameplay but also dealt with different levels of consciousness, what's reality, what's a dream - it reminded me a bit of the movie inception. The 70s tone was also there and the humour was quite funny most of the times.
But all in all it has a much more arcade-style than the previous games and for a next installment, I'd like a 70s setting by design, cars, fashion and color filters... an open-world that doesn't end at the side of the roads and crashing physics like this:

[J_Frumpleberg]

I saw that video yesterday, its awesome that Rigs of Rods seems to have been acquired by someone, put that damage system into some real games! Hopefully it'll make it into the open world genre soon, its what I've been craving since Driver 1! If at first the engine is only in a fps, I guess I'll put up with it but there probably won't be many opportunities to drive, or traffic

As for GTA4, I thought the city looked great, best looking city in a game ever I'd say. Great looking explosions! One thing thats perplexed me about GTA is why can't they just make the shorelines swimmer frielndly? If you fall in the water, you have to swim too far to get out.

Car physics weren't that great, I wouldn't call it cartoony. The old GTA's were cartoony, but it worked great! What was wrong with that? Just improve collision detection, like how some objects would bring your car to a complete stop. San Andreas was the best, Vice City the cars turned too fast from what I remember, and 3 was good. They were easy enough to jump right in and drive like a pro. In 4 the cars are too sluggish, handbrake is unusable. Well I have a lot of other complaints outside the physics, but who cares

Ok one more, no planes, all that should change hopefully within a years time. Also, small amount of weapons and cheat codes

[brok2]

Hey everyone- I'm finally back after a few months of not having the net at home. Feels good to be back. I've been spending a lot of my offline time cruising through D:SF, and enjoying it quite a lot. D:PL left me so dissapointed I didn't bother to do an in depth review of that one, but I think D:SF deserves a good toothcomb review when I've finished it.

interesting that I'm thinking absolutely different...
I really liked the approach of GTA IV to a more gritty and dirty look and to move away a bit of all the cartooney style of the previous games.
The more serious tone to everything, the subtile criticism of nowadays western society and of course all the touch of easter europe was great IMO.
I even liked the radio-stations, especially vladivostok FM, radio-broker, electro-choc, liberty rock radio and all the great commericals.
The vehicle handling and damage system was also greatly improved although I have to say, that after playing DSF and returning to GTA IV, rockstar's vehicle physics felt really weird and in fact quite cartoonish. So a lot to improve here for GTA V.

Unfortunately all these gritty, dirty, rusty design was what I LOVED in the driver series and now I am missing it since DPL, which was the first that went into the direction of the pre-GTA-IV titles.
DSF was really fun, I really liked the storyline that offered not only an innovative gameplay but also dealt with different levels of consciousness, what's reality, what's a dream - it reminded me a bit of the movie inception. The 70s tone was also there and the humour was quite funny most of the times.
But all in all it has a much more arcade-style than the previous games and for a next installment, I'd like a 70s setting by design, cars, fashion and color filters... an open-world that doesn't end at the side of the roads and crashing physics like this:

I'm completely with PeaceMaker on this one. Overall I found GTA IV extremely underwhelming. The multiplayer kept me glued for a while but the physics of it all just took out the fun, both in car and on foot handling.

Good to see the Rigs of Rods physics getting more recognition, but I'd probably never want to see it in a sandbox game- one 'fun over realism' element that I'm glad to say has stayed constant in sandboxes right from the start is to be able to drive away from a crash that would normally total the car. If Rigs of Rods collision modelling appeared on an open world game, you'd be allowed one bingle per car and that's it. The crumpling might look impressive, but for gameplay flow it'd suck so much it'd be painful. Even D3's damage was a bit over indulgent, I think. Having bumpers that dropped off and sat on the road adding absolutely nothing to gameplay whatsoever, at the cost of other elements the CPU could be setting it's mind to. Hell even D1 and 2's damage was fine. Pixellated, sure, but you don't need parts flying off all over the place to know the car's badly damaged, and if you can get more performance out of the game by keeping it simple, then keep it simple!

[J_Frumpleberg]

Good to see you back Brok, I had been wondering what happened to you.

As for RoR damage, I love vehicular carnage, I realise it would suck on a mission to total your car so easily. As I always say, put it on an option menu so we can tune the damage, set different levels for missions and free roam

[PeaceMaker_101]

Hey everyone- I'm finally back after a few months of not having the net at home. Feels good to be back. I've been spending a lot of my offline time cruising through D:SF, and enjoying it quite a lot. D:PL left me so dissapointed I didn't bother to do an in depth review of that one, but I think D:SF deserves a good toothcomb review when I've finished it.I'm completely with PeaceMaker on this one. Overall I found GTA IV extremely underwhelming. The multiplayer kept me glued for a while but the physics of it all just took out the fun, both in car and on foot handling.Good to see the Rigs of Rods physics getting more recognition, but I'd probably never want to see it in a sandbox game- one 'fun over realism' element that I'm glad to say has stayed constant in sandboxes right from the start is to be able to drive away from a crash that would normally total the car. If Rigs of Rods collision modelling appeared on an open world game, you'd be allowed one bingle per car and that's it. The crumpling might look impressive, but for gameplay flow it'd suck so much it'd be painful. Even D3's damage was a bit over indulgent, I think. Having bumpers that dropped off and sat on the road adding absolutely nothing to gameplay whatsoever, at the cost of other elements the CPU could be setting it's mind to. Hell even D1 and 2's damage was fine. Pixellated, sure, but you don't need parts flying off all over the place to know the car's badly damaged, and if you can get more performance out of the game by keeping it simple, then keep it simple!

I recently stopped playing through GTA IV altogether, only to end up waiting to play Ballad of Gay Tony instead. The thought of just backtracking (especially when you don't have any checkpoints and have to start a mission over again from the start) really turned me off from finishing the rest of the second island (I think that I was on the second or third mission with Dwayne). And one part of me doesn't really feel like spending 50+ hours on the single-player alone. I guess that I just want to have enough time to breeze through each game I play and still enjoy myself, whilst being able to play 20 different titles or more each year (with the help of GameFly and OnLive).

That said, I wouldn't say that GTA IV was really a horrible or mediocre game. Where most critics gave it a 9.0 out of 10 or higher, I probably would give it a 7.5 or 8, no more, no less. It had a lot of things that it did right, but there were definitely some flaws that can cause the whole experience to feel a lot less fun than it could have been without such serious issues.

Yeah, realistic car crashes like that would probably fare way better off in a survival game, like a future Far Cry game or something else. Placing that level of realism in a circuit-based racing game or driving game of any kind would not be fun 99% of the time.

I'm actually probably going to hold out on playing games for the next month or so again because I have a lot of catching up to do with my college classes, my friends, and trying to get more hours of work. There are too many problems going on in my life all at once that I definitely want to make room for improvement.

[brok2]

Off the top of my head, the only kind of game I could see Rigs of Rods technology working would be a combat flight sim- specifically a WW1 themed game. Back then, most bullets went in one side of the wood and cloth biplanes and straight out the other. The only way to bring one down was to either shoot enough supports etc to make a wing structure fail, or hit the pilot. Nursing your plane through the sky as it gets increasingly chewed up, could make for pretty tense gameplay, and seeing those planes fold up in midair like tissue paper and crunch down onto the ground would be quite a sight.