View Full Version : carbon cars slow or what?


Elenothar
12-28-2006, 04:28 AM
i have to be missing something here.

i am thinking back to nfsu, nfsu2, nfsmw... and after you beat the game you can take pretty much every car and max out the stat bars on it and they all pretty much end up being the same speed and performance for multiplayer play in "My Cars". however in carbon even with every single part applied most of the cars barely hit just over half for top speed. i've beat career and all the challenge rounds. sure it might be unrealistic but its bloody boring if the cars which actually look good top at like 120mph :p

i beat nfsu2 using the civic. in nfsmw after beating the burger king challenge you can apply the junkman parts to the cars to top out the ratings. i just want my eclipse and g35 to actually move.

jed29
12-28-2006, 05:09 AM
need for speed carbon was not as good as mw and ug2......speed has nothing to do with it....the cars were unrealistic...so i dont think that the comon speed of any car is a factor.

Finraziel
12-28-2006, 08:16 AM
I have the impression that the tracks are just too bendy, the cars just don't get the chance to really get up there in speed.

Diablo
12-28-2006, 09:57 AM
need for speed carbon was not as good as mw and ug2......speed has nothing to do with it....the cars were unrealistic...so i dont think that the comon speed of any car is a factor.

Are you high? How can you compare the physics of cars in MW and Carbon to UG2? You wanna see unrealistic, play UG2 (or even UG). EA started making shitty games right after HP2, starting with the UG series (although MW and Carbon are slightly better).

Deviant Raven
12-28-2006, 10:06 AM
Are you high? How can you compare the physics of cars in MW and Carbon to UG2? You wanna see unrealistic, play UG2 (or even UG). EA started making shitty games right after HP2, starting with the UG series (although MW and Carbon are slightly better).

That's what I always say...All that was good in the NFS series died after HP2.:(

Elenothar
12-28-2006, 11:13 AM
i dunno. top speed seems like a factor to me. all the crew members had fast cars so they could pull out in front and draft/scout (it seemed). it also mattered in the canyon runs when the last 5% is a straightaway and the lambos overtake. though even the cars that have a high accelleration like the eclipse (iirc) it gets pwnt by the bots where the skyline does not.

Are you high?

nah. original nfsu is what got me playing. go ahead start the ricer insults i probably will forget to check back anyway.

Diablo
12-28-2006, 11:31 AM
i dunno. top speed seems like a factor to me. all the crew members had fast cars so they could pull out in front and draft/scout (it seemed). it also mattered in the canyon runs when the last 5% is a straightaway and the lambos overtake. though even the cars that have a high accelleration like the eclipse (iirc) it gets pwnt by the bots where the skyline does not.



nah. original nfsu is what got me playing. go ahead start the ricer insults i probably will forget to check back anyway.

No man, I'm not like that. I don't flame threads and insult people just because they like something I don't. Believe me, I don't hate UG and UG2. They're fun. But what I'm saying is, they're not too realistic. Heck, I don't think ANY of the NFS games are realistic. And by definition, a ricer is a person who hates anything except extremely expensive or low performance cars that are "souped up" (wtf) to look "mad hawt".

MaXell Nitro
12-28-2006, 05:26 PM
ok Elenothar, look: in carbon u have classed cars (tier 1,2,3). tier 1 cars are the "weakest" and tier 3 are "top notch". using no nos/speed trainer ,the audi LeMans is the fastest. so that's why not all the cars are he same ,witch is good ,cuz i was sick to see a clio keep up with a Murc like MW and a Punto witha a 911 Turbo...that was lame.
speakin' about "realism" in NFS (since ugd1) ,the best of them was UGD2. i know ,it was an arcade by far ,but it had the best dose of simulation in it than MW and Carbon. that game simulated simulation if u know what i mean. it was a ricer's paradise ,yeah ,but nobody obligates u tu f.kin rice the cars. it had the best engine sound, good car phisycs and there are some more + for U2. it's not near Porsche or HP2 but between MW and carbon ,it's way better imo.

Revolution
12-28-2006, 05:26 PM
EA started making shitty games right after HP2, starting with the UG series (although MW and Carbon are slightly better).
I disagree. NFS6:HP2 was a rather average game, on the PC at least. I hear the PS2 version was better, but thats beside the point.
At that point in the series the exotic cars in exotic locations thing had gotten stale, and so EA refreshed the series, and we got Underground. Now, I thought Underground was a great game, but I'm one of those people who like to spend hours customising their car to make it visually as good as possible, so I found the Underground series to be great fun. Certainly not a shitty game. UG2 was by all means a great game.. but I never enjoyed it as much as UG1, it might have something to do with the many import tuning games which had appeared in between late 2003 and late 2004. The formula wasn't fresh anymore, so they tinkered with it again, and MW came out.
MW was a great game, it was great to see Lamborghinis, Porsches and Aston Martins back in an NFS game. It provided a good mix of the old style vintage NFS with the underground street-racing scene. Now we have Carbon, which as added some more UG-style into the game, and in theory is still a good game. Its let down by frequent bugs and crashes, cars which are seemingly.. missing, and length of the game. I still enjoyed it thoroughly, mainly for the indepth customisation, which I'm going to say is one of my favourite features of any game.
All in all.. in my opinion the NFS series of the past 3-4 years haven't been shitty.

REBEL35SUSPECT
12-28-2006, 05:57 PM
honestly i dont find the cars in carbon slow at all in fact my charger r/t actually reaches quite a high speed

the only problem with carbon i find is no matter what you try an do to the cars in career they seem to just tap you even lightly an your like a pinball get hit by the flippers

what i mean is ive tried to do the pit move on cars in front of me when ive been racing but for the life of me i cant bloody do it they just dont get affected but if they wanna do it to you then you just bounce of there bloody car an it just goes crazy

also the other thing is when you hit stuff at the side of the road the car litterly just gets stopped by anything i never knew that bags of trash could make a car going at 150 mph suddenly slow down to just 40mph i mean really does a normal bag of trash weigh that much?

Elenothar
12-29-2006, 04:20 AM
witch is good ,cuz i was sick to see a clio keep up with a Murc like MW and a Punto witha a 911 Turbo...that was lame.

i did not count, so lets assume that by me saying that tier 3 is only a third of the cars in the game is accurate. that seems more lame to me just for visual bordem of everyone driving the same thing. and technically there is nothing stopping a clio from going as fast as a merc in real life (except maybe aerodynamics) - take nascar as an example. the body shapes are basically those of family cars (taurus, monte carlo, etc). even if you do not buy that line, carbon is still a game, and the more variety the better. after beating the game abusing it is pretty much all replay value it could have had.

it is actually annoying to me when people complain about such things like the civic vs a skyline because they obviously missed the game part of the game. that is what i find lame.

the tracks are def winding enough that the cars rarely need to even deal with their own top speed... but it still threw me for a wtf loop and i swear most of them accelerate like a pile of poo uphill on a cold day.

velicyraptor
01-05-2007, 01:23 PM
Ok, I liked NFS since I was a kid, it was and still is my favorite game. And I actually liked what they did with underground and underground 2, thats when this game actually became fun for me. Most wanted was an awsome game, the only thing I DONT like is that you cant tune your car the same way you could in underground 2. Oh and about Carbon, I like the way they seperated cars in tiers, because it would be really unrealistic like in underground, underground 2 and most wanted that you could tune basicly and car and make it go really fast. As if I took Mazda 3 and tuned it up, so it can go as fast as Porsche Carrera, I mean c'mon! Now what I dont like about carbon is that the game is too shorrt, and some things are too hard to unlock. Like for instance, you have to get $1000000 in carrer to win a part of a rewards card to get the Chevelle, and at the same time you have to fill up your garage with only muscles, exotics, and tuners. Also, you have to pay for some cars in order to get them like that Zonda car or the old Toyota (not the MR2). Considering that I got this one for X360 and not PC, I cant use no trainers to unlock things, so I cant modify the Audi Lemans and BMW and things like that. And the last thing I have to say is, whats up with the bundles? Bundle for high preformance, for cars, for autosculpt. They just killed it with that. Beside, the things I just said, I like carbon, especially the drift which is unrealistic but I just love the way you control cars, thats the real reason I even like carbon.

Ricochet
01-06-2007, 12:45 AM
need for speed carbon was not as good as mw and ug2......speed has nothing to do with it....the cars were unrealistic...so i dont think that the comon speed of any car is a factor.
You're doing it backwards, UGs were completely unrealitic, MW and Carbon weren't good either, but were at least better.

Anathema
01-06-2007, 02:13 AM
technically there is nothing stopping a clio from going as fast as a merc in real life (except maybe aerodynamics)


And a few hundred horsepower...


Unless you turned it into a drag car... but then what would we say for handling???





Anyway... I think your confusion lies in that you, most likely, are partial to the tuner cars, which, in this game, have the "feature" of handling. Just like Muscle has acceleration/top speed and Exotics have an all around feature.

EA designed it so that all the tuner cars would have agile handling as opposed to muscle having... well, a lot of oversteer like they are supposed to. So if you want more speed, buy a car that was made for more speed. My Cuda topped out at 241 on the downhill, and that's plenty fast for me... of course, it's murder in the canyon races... But I have no problem with speed...

MaXell Nitro
01-06-2007, 06:13 PM
the ideea of the above example ,a clio and a murc is realy stupid. i mean yes ,it's a game after all ,but please ,a little respect for the over 200k$ cars aka exotics. and another thing...ok ,let's say it's possible to make a clio go like a murc ,but that clio must be over-tuned to keep up/overtake a murc ,and becouse it's a tuning game ,the murcielago can also be tuned witch brings us to the begining: stock clio v6= around 200-230 hp ,stock murc= 580 hp ,overtuned clio= 550? 600hp? (exagerated) tuned murc= over 900 hp?? (it's a game)...c'mon :| it's lame!
*note: i took the clio/murc comparison cuz we talked about it earlyer ,but these examples are a lot: like glof V vs. carrera gt ,is300 vs ford gt ,300C vs SLR and so on...
so the thing with tiers is ok with me. in carbon u can also feel the differences between tier1/2/3 classed cars like a WRX STI (tuner tier3) vs carrera gt (exotic tier3). the sti rockets of the start line ,but the lack of top speed is pulling him back in long straight lines and the CGT rockets passed him.
in conclusion ,the carbon cars are not slow ,they belong to different "classes" (tiers) and are somhow ballanced.

You're doing it backwards, UGs were completely unrealitic, MW and Carbon weren't good either, but were at least better.

,the best of them was UGD2. i know ,it was an arcade by far ,but it had the best dose of simulation in it than MW and Carbon. that game simulated simulation if u know what i mean. it was a ricer's paradise ,yeah ,but nobody obligates u tu f.kin rice the cars.
this is what i think...

Ricochet
01-06-2007, 10:49 PM
I was wondering, does the tuning of the performance parts (Velocity/duration of nitrous) make a difference?

MaXell Nitro
01-07-2007, 07:08 AM
of course they do..

t3ku
01-07-2007, 07:16 AM
I never really noticed a dif with NOS, only with trans and engine upgrade adjusting the torque or hp did the trick.
Still I have seen these T1 cars irl tuned and they go alot faster than what is in Carbon, this game is completly unrealistic in every aspec...

Ricochet
01-08-2007, 06:40 AM
of course they do..

Well, I don't see any difference? The only difference I see are the grip tires and drift tires.
BTWs which one is better?

REBEL35SUSPECT
01-08-2007, 08:55 AM
well if you want to keep your car on the ground an not having it slide alot then grip but if you want the car to drift easier for the drifting stuff then drift not that i notice a difference with any of the upgrades

OD211
01-08-2007, 09:14 AM
I find gripping faster than drifting. But, then again, I grip with tires set slightly to drift.

demoman_chaos
01-08-2007, 12:36 PM
Here is my 2 cents.
Tiers are good, but they could have had a better system.

About the tuning:
The NOS tuning is noticable, if you compare the adjustments side-by-side.

MOST noticable is really the brakes. May not give you much, but slight changes can cause some serious disruptions in the car's balance.

Ricochet
01-10-2007, 04:07 AM
Here is my 2 cents.
Tiers are good, but they could have had a better system.
Yeah, I mean, Brera in the class of an RX8? 350Z in the class of a Murcielago?

demoman_chaos
01-10-2007, 05:44 AM
They should have just made the cars like MW without the junkman parts. Regular upgrades that makes certain cars inbetween classes.

TargaGuy
01-10-2007, 02:17 PM
Yeah, I mean, Brera in the class of an RX8? 350Z in the class of a Murcielago?

You're taking it all wrong, it's not comparing tuners and exotics. Mainly it's comparing between each type, not comparing other types (tuner - exotic).

It's obvious, a 350z can't hack up w/ a Lambo.:)

demoman_chaos
01-10-2007, 02:38 PM
then why is the RX-8 in T1? It is supposed to be faster than the RX-7.

t3ku
01-10-2007, 06:37 PM
Technically its slower in real life... less hp and no turbo :\
But a 350 stock is no comparison to the Murcielago, the 300zx Fairlady has more hp than the 350 and still couldnt compete with a Murc.

Revolution
01-10-2007, 08:36 PM
Thats why you can go much further tuning the Z than you can the Murcie.

demoman_chaos
01-11-2007, 06:09 AM
Whatever you do, don't put a new engine in an Impreza, unless you desperatly need it). The car sounds decent stock but sounds like a squeeking fart when the engine is modifed (everything else is ok).

Ricochet
01-11-2007, 06:34 AM
Thats why you can go much further tuning the Z than you can the Murcie.
Yes, cause the Murc is already way ahead :P.