Read the book's synopsis... and the way you watch it will change
Don't know about you but I was doing hotlaps on Mario Kart on the SNES and trying to do Sonic levels quicker than anyone else.
Still was good fun, but we're humans, we play and we get good at something.
If a game has 'learnable' (? real word) & repetitive elements people will get better. If you take away a basic human function of learning and improving, then why would anyone continue playing. and playing a basic function of learning. To play is to learn is to improve.
You'd need to introduce a handicap system... and that gets complicated and ther game isn't fair anymore.
The only way to make it pure play if there was no competition and there was a constant flow of original tasks and games that has no transferable skills.
task based games could be interesting. Removing the competitive element for a communal one.
Last edited by Intrepid, .
I think the society one fits all 6 
Karl Marx never made video games, but if he did they'd be the shittest in the world
If a player is not rewarded for the extra time and effort they put into something, then there really isn't any point in them spending more than a few hours on it. It would render the point of gaming useless.
Having a measurable improvement in something is what makes people get addicted to something. It's not fun getting good at something only to be punished for it.
Most observers put McLaren and RBR very close though. No one else seems to be mentioning Macca having rear end issues though. It does seem common in the vids
Chuck Norris is in the expendables 2.
Rather basic invoice here so not sure if real but F1 prices are pretty high nowadays http://www.lapatilla.com/site/ ... stor-maldonado-documento/
Didn't say timesheets are indicative of performance. Visual observations, over the years, have been pretty good. Only really followed testing since 2008 and every year observers have been pretty accurate. 2008 it was traction issues for McLaren (true), 2009 the MP4-24 was a disaster (true) and the Brawn and RedBull were quick (true). 2010/2011 RBR a level above and McLaren fast but lacking balance (true).
The McLaren (and I've seen another clip but can't find it) didn't look brilliant. doesn't mean it isn't fast, but it doesn't look brilliant. The RBR, as observers have already mentioned, looks absolutely planted.
I wouldn't bet my house on anything, but the pattern only follows recent years which shouldn't be a surprise. It's what we should expect. RBR are fully lit and everyone else will be playing catch up... again.
Last edited by Intrepid, .
Times mean nothing, but visual observations can reveal alot.
As usual the RedBull is handling beautifully, from that one clip of the McLaren they appear to have some setup work to do. Lotus looked good, but probably lacks all out pace of RBR... echoes of last year
Doesn't look like one moment to me, looks like three. The rear is stepping out on the exit of all three corners we can see.
Of course, I am aware it doesn't mean anything (testing is testing), but it does follow the same pattern from last year, and to a lesser extent 2009. I can almost guarantee you won't see that behaviour from the Bulls
Of course, I am aware it doesn't mean anything (testing is testing), but it does follow the same pattern from last year, and to a lesser extent 2009. I can almost guarantee you won't see that behaviour from the Bulls
Random lap, no info on tyre condition or fuel but McLaren's rear end looks shittteee http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNODkBb6_Ok
http://i386.photobucket.com/albums/oo306/Tarya/rbrnose3.jpg
90% of the grid thinking "**** you Newey"
90% of the grid thinking "**** you Newey"
I wouldn't blame 'commercial interests' because it's not in the interest of 'commercial interests' for WRC to die. Had WRC been more commercially aware it wouldn't be in such a crisis, maybe. Nascar is one-big racing commercial billboard and despite being just a national series, it's absolutely huge. Nascar is designed to fulfil commercial interests above anything else. Every decision made is to maintain a high amount of viewers which is exactly what commercial interests want.
WRC lacks in many areas. One of the tragic facts is that as a spectator sport it's not very appealing. Maybe 20 years ago when we had Group B and rally was still fresh and exciting. Now, it's pretty dull, and the viewers can't be bothered to tune in. Pretty hard to fix.
anything above doing track days in your normal road car.
Sim Racing to Real Racing - Have you done it?
Just a question that's been intriguing me recently with GT Academy doing quite well and other programs mimicking that.
How many of you guys have starting on sim racing and then gone onto invest in your own racing car? If not yourself, someone you know. And by 'starting in sim racing' I mean no previous experience in karts/cars.
How many of you guys have starting on sim racing and then gone onto invest in your own racing car? If not yourself, someone you know. And by 'starting in sim racing' I mean no previous experience in karts/cars.
Well we're getting even lower noses in the years to come so this is only temporary. Ferrari appear to have been let loose with a lego set by the looks of it though.
Excusing the step nose though the FI is looking very refined.
Wing dimensions are still shit though, no amount of time will get me used to them
Excusing the step nose though the FI is looking very refined.
Wing dimensions are still shit though, no amount of time will get me used to them
Last edited by Intrepid, .
Black rims make a difference aesthetically
They;ll be trying a number of exhaust positions no doubt, just like most other teams.
This is why the article was pulled. It was clearly bullshit. This car is to the extreme end of conservatism.
Well that's lame. Wanted wings and guns and stuff.
I wonder how many people were crying while tucking into a bacon sandwich?
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG