Yup, and that's exactly why it should have catch-up logic! It's a good thing for arcade type racers IMO, IF it's done correctly.

Something maybe worth noting: I personally am not really into Mario Kart, but from what I have played, and what I've been told, it seems like they achieve the same results a different way. Instead of artificially changing the vehicle characteristics, the lagging racers tend to get better items (or so I've been told). Neat idea in theory, although it seems like that could also tend to result in hanging back being a valid strategy.

You mean like it is in real racing? Hang out in second place, then on the last lap pass using the slipstream. :-p

Dakatana - Even if John Romero had not made this sound like the second coming of Jesus before launch the delays and budget overruns and just bag gameplay and visuals would have made it bad. The hubris, though, made me buy it even knowing it would be terrible.

Superman 64 must be around here somewhere. Do you want to fly around being Superman? NO YOU DON'T and this game will prove it to you using upwards of 40 polygons and one single mechanic: Fly through a ring in 3 dimensional space using 2 dimensional controls.

Custers revenge - I'm already breaking my rules about cartridge ownership, but I do have the ROM. This was an Atari 2600 game where you sprint around a sparse cactus forest dodging arrows shot by Native Americans. That's pretty basic and repetitive, not to mention somewhat problematic for today's audience and may affect your enjoyme…Oh no, look: now you are naked and suffering priapism now the game has you rape a woman who is tied to a cactus. What the actual fuck? The worst part is I know I played this as a kid and don't remember it at all so now it's a coin flip whether I repressed the memory as too awful and it sits in my brain waiting to explode, or if I blithely didn't understand what was happening.

I don't still have it, but as long as I'm complaining about old games I had as a kid,
Any of the Philips CD-i Nintendo games, where you played as off-model Mario or Zelda where the game was laggy, the hit detection was lousy and they rendered FMV scenes animated from MS Paint drawings as a "reward". Ugh. Pure nightmare fuel.

As opposed to the best/worst, Thunder in paradise, the FMV game! Press a button to watch me drive a boat, brother!

Something maybe worth noting: I personally am not really into Mario Kart, but from what I have played, and what I've been told, it seems like they achieve the same results a different way. Instead of artificially changing the vehicle characteristics, the lagging racers tend to get better items (or so I've been told). Neat idea in theory, although it seems like that could also tend to result in hanging back being a valid strategy.

that theory is sometimes true and sometimes not, depending on how far to the sim or arcade side a given game leans

Road Rash is very likely not at all in the sim side of the spectrum :p

There is a concept in some racing games that players refer to as rubber-banding. A more technical name for it is "catch-up logic."

There's a Genesis game called Road Rash that's a cool concept, but falters because it DOESN'T do this. It's a game about motorcycle racing and combat… but the racers drift apart as the races get longer, such that there is little to no combat. You are cruising along with nobody else nearby.

What can I say? It appealed to my inner Cronenberg.

There was just an inherent something about the atmosphere that was amazing.

The atmosphere and art direction were literally the only things keeping me playing. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Inside, while I was playing it, if only because of the aesthetic. I never found what I was actually doing compelling though, and I was left thinking "That's it?" when it was over.

I felt like what I was doing really added to my feeling of the aesthetic. I also appreciate that it wasn't too long and didn't over explain anything.

I was left thinking "That's it?" when it was over.

Happens to a lot of people.

I understand that criticism. It was not satisfying in a conventional way.

There's only one game I actually own that I really hate, and that's Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. The first time I played it was some multiplayer matches at a sort of LAN party. It was a few years after it had been "a thing" and everyone else there was nostalgic for it (read: they were people who had played it a lot). I kid you not, I got one kill the entire time. It was the worst gaming experience I can recall, in my life. I think that was either the beginning of, or a major boost to, my gradual realization that I didn't especially like competitive shooters anymore. Then, some time later, I bought it (used, for peanuts) because although I hadn't enjoyed the multiplayer, the controls and everything worked fine, meaning that it wasn't functionally bad. Also, it was a significant game in the industry, and since I like discussing games and design theory with people, I thought that I should play the campaign so I'd know what it was like. It was... meh. At least to someone playing it several years after it was a new thing. Much like the multiplayer, there wasn't anything functionally wrong with it, but I just couldn't find the fun.

As far as the competitive multiplayer goes, that's most likely largely due to my own distaste for that style of gameplay in general, rather than a fault with the game. Although I will note that the gap in this one between experienced players and new players appears to be MASSIVE. While I'm not big on competitive shooters, I have been playing FPS games for a LONG time, and in most games, I would be able to have a few successes here and there, even if I wasn't anywhere near the top. But in this game, at least against highly experienced players, It was virtually impossible for me to kill anyone. Typically, I was dead before I even knew another player was present. I do not have enough familiarity with the game to say exactly WHY, but I'd wager the VERY quick kill times have at least something to do with it.

On the single player/campaign side, there were more than a few spots where it wasn't clear what to do. I remember one spot where I fought the enemies for a while, and they kept coming out of a spawn closet. Nothing new there, lots of games have spawn closets, but this went on for an awful long time. I finally just tried running past them, and it turned out that was what I was supposed to do all along. But there was nothing that TOLD me I should charge past the enemies, and in many parts of the game prior to that, killing all the enemies was required to proceed.

A similar thing happened again in another spot. I was trapped outdoors in narrow streets with absolutely zero cover, and many enemies were present. After trying and failing repeatedly to survive combat, I finally just ran through them (yes, they were directly in the only path forward - I probably touched a couple of them on the way past). This wasn't a strategy, I was just so frustrated with the situation that I started screwing around. Charging directly at them seemed like the dumbest possible tactical decision, in fact. But, naturally, it turns out that was what I was supposed to do. I know this probably sounds like I'm just an idiot, but if I could SHOW you the spot I was in... It just should be clear to anyone who knows how guns work that running at these guys should have been the LEAST survivable option.

I hate Need for Speed: Underground almost as much, but it would be inaccurate to say that I own that one, since I intentionally destroyed the disc and threw it in the garbage, reckoning that would be more fun and satisfying than actually playing the game any more (I wasn't wrong).

There is a concept in some racing games that players refer to as rubber-banding. A more technical name for it is "catch-up logic." The idea is that when there's a certain gap between racers, the game will artificially speed up the lagging racer(s) in order to bring the pack closer together. The theory being, of course, that it's more interesting when the racing is close (that theory is sometimes true and sometimes not, depending on how far to the sim or arcade side a given game leans). Need for Speed: Underground failed massively at doing this properly. It would speed up cars that were behind 1st place (it's worth noting that this didn't just apply to SPEED in a straight line, but also to cornering grip), but it would leave them at that pace for way too long even after they had caught up. The result of this was that you'd be in 1st place, and some AI car would come rocketing past you at a ridiculous speed, and they would just keep going until there was a several-second gap. Sometimes they would almost get out of view before they returned to normal speed. I actually adopted a policy of intentionally staying in 2nd place until very close to the end of the last lap. Because if I tried to just race properly and stay in 1st, inevitably someone would come hurtling by, and if that happened in the last lap there was a very good chance that there wouldn't be enough time to catch up.

I was left thinking "That's it?" when it was over.

Happens to a lot of people.

What can I say? It appealed to my inner Cronenberg.

There was just an inherent something about the atmosphere that was amazing.

The atmosphere and art direction were literally the only things keeping me playing. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Inside, while I was playing it, if only because of the aesthetic. I never found what I was actually doing compelling though, and I was left thinking "That's it?" when it was over.

What can I say? It appealed to my inner Cronenberg.

There was just an inherent something about the atmosphere that was amazing.

I guess I don't OWN it, because it was free... but it's dumb. Intriguing in concept, hilarious for about 30 seconds, then dumb.

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.

But getting over it is awesome awesome awesome.

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.

That... sounds like something that was exclusively designed to be played by children.

So like a normal Sonic game? Yeah probs.

To be clear, I'm not trying to give you a hard time for playing it. I'm just saying, it seems like they designed it for one particular audience and ignored that any others might exist.

I'm pretty sure I posted this same image of Claude a long time ago on HBO. Are you both in this picture?

I'm definitely the short one.

Screamride is a truly horrible game I bought because it reminds me of the dark ages, when I was little kid--there were no video games, and we just had sticks, rocks, and lincoln logs to play with. Gravity, physics, and destruction were our only amusements.

I'm pretty sure I posted this same image of Claude a long time ago on HBO. Are you both in this picture?