I have no idea where your coming from with all of this TBH. The point is, you get some interesting tracks and scenery to drive through that you wouldn't otherwise unless your a frequent flier. It's a backdrop, and adds character to what would otherwise be bland and flavourless. The fighting game analogy I have here is, would you play a bunch of hitboxes clashing each other or do you desire more out of your experience that makes it interesting? Maybe some character models, something to grow attachment to or contextualize?
I addressed this. I said the aesthetics are nice to have, but that can't be all. If you gave me a game with Dormammu, Shuma-Gorath, Firebrand, Wolverine, etc., and they all played like Ryu, it would be pretty lame.
And I don't know what you mean by a "supercar" is all graphics. It's a fundamental difference in performance from your old Jetta. They accelerate and decelerate at faster speeds, reach higher top speeds, are harder to wrangle and handle (especially with racing wheels), these are things you cannot replicate unless your in a very fortunate position. Racing games provide you these tools to do time attack over and over, perhaps explore real or fictional locations through the racing game framework, and more.
The experience is roughly the same, though. It's like having a Ryu with a slightly faster fireball vs. one with a slower fireball. It's still just Ryu, and they're still just cars.
What's wrong with an elevation of a normal experience? I can go outside and run and jump, but can I scale gigantic buildings with a leap like I can do in Crackdown? Can I jump on goombas like I can in Mario? I can go outside and punch a guy, or spar with my buddy, why should I play Street Fighter? What happens to the lack of stimulus from the lack of adrenaline running through your blood, the physical contact and the full body movement? How reductionist do you want to go and where do you draw the line at what is new/ficticious and what is familiar? Are you choosing to be less reductionist with genres you enjoy?
I've always called Street Fighter boring! Truly, if I were able to fight like any character in Street Fighter, I would have no interest in it at all. Unfortunately, I can't. I have a bad knee and wrist, and I wear glasses. I really hate wearing glasses.
What can I do in real life that's like Mario? Spit fireballs? Fly? Fight fire-breathing lizards? Mario games are more than jumping. Racing games are not more than driving.
I don't know what Crackdown is, but I would say this: if you are athletic and skilled enough to do freerunning, go for it. If my body were capable of those things, I would definitely do that over playing a game where I jump up buildings. Then again, I don't see the appeal in playing a game where I jump up buildings in the first place. Not unless it's Rampage, and that's more about the joy of smashing them to bits, which I don't get to do in real life (or eat people).
My standards seem consistent. Racing games suck.
Also arcade is a subgenre of handling physics. On one far end is stuff like Ridge Racer and Burnout and on the other is Forza, GT, Project Cars, etc. I understand car games are not your fancy, but I don't get how it's hard to understand the appeal they have to those that do. It's almost self-evident from the suspension of reality most seem to target and the way they clearly resonate and have resonated even since the days of NFS II and III.
I can understand playing something like F-Zero. I've never played the other games you listed. The last racing game I played was Daytona USA. It was fun. But I was also 8, and I couldn't drive yet. ;-)
I ask people this when they say they are fans of Animal Crossing.
Animal Crossing is on its own level of suck. It's even beneath Heavy Rain.
For the most part, people play certain characters because they like what their character is capable of or the character design appeals to them. I really dislike the attitude of "why pick x when y is better?" To me, it just sounds like people are lazy and want the easy way out. I suppose it's understandable if top players pick the best characters because tournament winnings are usually their main source of income. However, at lower skill levels, the better player will always win, not the player with the better character.
Karsticles, if you're playing this game looking to win, then by all means pick Vergil. If you're looking to have fun, stick with Phoenix (I'm assuming thats why you picked her in the first place).
I'm writing from a purely theoretical standpoint. I don't use Phoenix or Vergil. I dropped Phoenix a month ago, and I'm not upset about it at all. I wrote that to help people understand why she is not a good character in this metagame. I play to win
and use characters I like. If you see my posts in the Marvel OT, I'm always coming up with new tech for new teams. Right now I play Firebrand/Dormammu/Shuma-Gorath. It's a very strong team. This game is not so bad that you have to tier whore to win. Vergil is free food for Firebrand.
