Short reviews of all games I have for a system: Saturn

[A Black Falcon]

You picked probably the only major advantage of Screamer 2... 'Cause the track textures and trackside objects are better on the NFS. The in car view is ugly on Screamer 2 and the NFS's sfx are clearly superior.

What? No way! Screamer 2 has better graphics than NFS1 for sure, with far, far better looking cars, more detailed environments, and more. NFS clearly shows its age in comparison... (As for in-car view, I use behind-the-car in nearly all racing games, so that'd be a very minor point for me. But yes, NFS2 does have NFS1-like car interiors.)

NFS Porsche looks very good today. III and IV have that sort of "plastic" looking that me and StarMist use to hate, but they sure look better than NFSII and I.

High Stakes looks great, very similar to Porsche Unleashed I think. And its gameplay is as good as the series gets. I don't think it looks "plasticky" at all...

I did read your other analysis and comments, I wasn't bashing your opinions or something. I just argued about those points, the other ones I agreed so I didn't see any reason to argue about them.

Okay.

Oh, you're right. Sorry but in Brazil most of the time you'd only find the SE versions of I and II, don't ask me why.

Huh, that's odd. The regular editions are probably more common in the US.

I said "were" 'cause I was talking about past's PC audience. Until the mid '90s it was A LOT different than the today's audience. It's not that there wasn't any arcade style games for the PC, it's just that simulators usually were more relevant and were present in an abnormal quantity compared to the consoles.

I was primarily a PC gamer through the whole decade of the '90s, so I know that there were plenty of games for people of any age... I was playing them. Now, it is true that I didn't get into racing games on the PC until '95 or so, but still, as my PC racing games thread shows, there are plenty of arcadey PC racing games out there!

As for the audience, PC gamers have always been older on average, yes, but they've never been ALL adults. Just more than consoles.

Grand Prix II, for an example, came with a manual that was like a real F1 drivers guide. It was huge... PC gamers loved stuff like that; today most of them wouldn't pass the first page of the manual.

You're right that PCs were the home of serious racing sims, but that isn't all they had.

No, I played it like crazy with my friends... The point is that the concept of that game was very different of the first one in many aspects, like the gameplay and physics model.

As a side note, I loved NFSII replays. I must have spent hours watching GT90 replays in Mystic Peaks... lol

It is somewhat different, but going back to both, it's also got some definite similarities. The graphics look similar, the in-car views are similar, the gameplay in NFS2 clearly was based on the first game's... the series did change with NFS2 (for the better, in my opinion), but I think NFS1's fans overstate somewhat how different the first one was from the ones that followed. And that griping you sometimes hear about "NFS1 is the only true sim NFS game!" is of course completely wrong; first it's not a sim, just a slightly more realistic arcadey game than most of the rest of the NFS games, but second Porsche Unleashed on the PC is more realistic than it is. And of course, that's not to mention the recent NFS Shift games, a much more simmish spinoff series now. (I know you didn't say this specific thing, and have mentioned PU for the PC, so this isn't about your statements, just about stuff I hear about NFS1 that isn't entirely accurate.)

Well, let me not totally derail your thread:



I don't have a video capture card so I had to use emulation, but I played it using an analog controller, like if I was using the multicontroller.
Hope it helps... Sega Rally, as later Mobil 1 Rally Championship used, has some sort of catch up system that only works for the next cars ahead you, so, besides how fast you're going on the track, it does a lot of difference how fast you pass the cars. The earlier you pass them, the better. Sometimes you can have a better time without passing so many cars due to some collision with them and it ends up fucking you more than the time itself.
It's also interesting to notice that if you're passing a car and have a lateral collision you'll receive a power boost (!!!). So try to use that to help you.
Reducing the gear before the curve helps to reduce your oversteering, which is great to improve the control of your car and maintain the speed as high as possible.

@StarMist
As I'm using emulation, I don't see the point of a direct link to the videos since they'll look shitty anyway, hehe.

Hah, manual? Yeah, no way would I ever touch manual anything with a ten foot pole, either in real life or any videogame which gives me a choice for automatic...

[Barone]

What? No way! Screamer 2 has better graphics than NFS1 for sure, with far, far better looking cars, more detailed environments, and more. NFS clearly shows its age in comparison... (As for in-car view, I use behind-the-car in nearly all racing games, so that'd be a very minor point for me. But yes, NFS2 does have NFS1-like car interiors.)

IDK if you're considering the 3Dfx support of Screamer 2 or not but its trees, for an example, look horrible.

High Stakes looks great, very similar to Porsche Unleashed I think.

Actually not, very different graphic engines. High Stakes is just NFSIII engine with some extra effects.

It is somewhat different, but going back to both, it's also got some definite similarities. The graphics look similar, the in-car views are similar, the gameplay in NFS2 clearly was based on the first game's... the series did change with NFS2 (for the better, in my opinion), but I think NFS1's fans overstate somewhat how different the first one was from the ones that followed. And that griping you sometimes hear about "NFS1 is the only true sim NFS game!" is of course completely wrong; first it's not a sim, just a slightly more realistic arcadey game than most of the rest of the NFS games, but second Porsche Unleashed on the PC is more realistic than it is. And of course, that's not to mention the recent NFS Shift games, a much more simmish spinoff series now. (I know you didn't say this specific thing, and have mentioned PU for the PC, so this isn't about your statements, just about stuff I hear about NFS1 that isn't entirely accurate.)

Yes, that stuff some people say is shit... NFS Porche is waaaaay more realistic than the first game. However, it was still arcadey. A game like Sports Car GT, released a bit earlier, had a far more realistic physics model, especially when you talk about the car reactions due to the terrain variations/imperfections.
Sports Car GT engine was somewhat the base to what became "rFactor" in 2005.
NFS Shift games use a tweaked rFactor engine AFAIK, nothing really outstanding after so many years...
SimBin games are still far more realistic IMO, also using the rFactor's engine as base. Games like GTR Evolution and Race Injection are very realistic and challenging without being boring. You also don't need a brand new PC to play SimBin lastest games but many people seem to hate this fact.

Hah, manual? Yeah, no way would I ever touch manual anything with a ten foot pole, either in real life or any videogame which gives me a choice for automatic...

F1 simulators, SimBin games and some more realistic rally games are almost impossible to finish without mastering manual gear shifting.
It's especially useful for rally games since it makes things easier to control, like to maintain the proper speed in some turns or to avoid losing grip by using a higher gear to lower your torque (it's not the case for Sega Rally since it's very arcadey).
You probably can finish Sega Rally using automatic gearbox but I find easier to use manual shifting.

[TVC 15]

If your not using manual your doing it wrong. (Only minor exceptions allowed).

I'm sorry but this admission near totally invalidates your whole PC Racing games thread.

[A Black Falcon]

If your not using manual your doing it wrong. (Only minor exceptions allowed).

Manual is a complete waste of time for people who can't deal with the fact that automatic is better... I have no idea why Europeans are so stuck on using manual, but there's no sane reason for it. All it does is adds complexity for no reason.

On that note, the only person I know (in real life) who drives manual is from Europe. I don't think it's a coincidence -- in the US, very, very few people have manual-shift cars. Who'd want to waste their time with that annoying complexity? It doesn't get you any actual benefit.

I'm sorry but this admission near totally invalidates your whole PC Racing games thread.

I hope that you're joking, but if you think that has anything to do with that thread, you didn't even read the thread at all, did you... I don't play sim racing games. I'd guess that a lot of those games don't even HAVE manual options! Futuristic racing games almost never have manual for instance, and that's my favorite type of racing game...

What next, are you going to complain that I always use the behind-the-car view, and never in-car?

[A Black Falcon]

IDK if you're considering the 3Dfx support of Screamer 2 or not but its trees, for an example, look horrible.

Even in software, Screamer 2 makes NFS1 look bad. The biggest difference is in the car models certainly, but that makes a big difference... and Screamer 2 has more detailed environments, too, as you'd expect from a newer game. I don't think NFS1 has anything like that desert town in Screamer 2.

Anyway though, Screamer 2's really a drift-centric rally-racing game... it should be more compared to Sega Rally than NFS, I think. Screamer 1 is the one that's a more standard car racing game (and it's much uglier too); they changed the formula for the second one, remember.

Actually not, very different graphic engines. High Stakes is just NFSIII engine with some extra effects.

I know that NFSHS uses III's graphics engine, but I hadn't remembered that PU uses a different one. Still, it looks fairly similar to HS, which looks nicely improved over III all around. Really, go back and look at III and HS again -- HS is a real improvement over III.

Yes, that stuff some people say is shit... NFS Porche is waaaaay more realistic than the first game. However, it was still arcadey. A game like Sports Car GT, released a bit earlier, had a far more realistic physics model, especially when you talk about the car reactions due to the terrain variations/imperfections.

That's true, NFSPU isn't nearly as simmish as something like Sports Car GT. I'd consider that a good thing, particularly in that it uses normal roads and not those real-world race courses I find generally uninteresting. While High Stakes is my favorite NFS game, Porsche Unleashed does do a good job of balancing sim and arcade, sure.

Sports Car GT engine was somewhat the base to what became "rFactor" in 2005.
NFS Shift games use a tweaked rFactor engine AFAIK, nothing really outstanding after so many years...
SimBin games are still far more realistic IMO, also using the rFactor's engine as base. Games like GTR Evolution and Race Injection are very realistic and challenging without being boring. You also don't need a brand new PC to play SimBin lastest games but many people seem to hate this fact.

SimBin? I assume they make sim racers for the PC? I don't play stuff like that of course.

simulators, SimBin games and some more realistic rally games are almost impossible to finish without mastering manual gear shifting.
It's especially useful for rally games since it makes things easier to control, like to maintain the proper speed in some turns or to avoid losing grip by using a higher gear to lower your torque (it's not the case for Sega Rally since it's very arcadey).
You probably can finish Sega Rally using automatic gearbox but I find easier to use manual shifting.

Why would it make it easier? I'd think that having to learn how to shift in manual gears would make it a whole lot harder than just using automatic... I don't have a clue about shifting in anything more complex than Outrun or Victory Run, and I don't plan on ever learning.

[Kamahl]

Manual is a complete waste of time for people who can't deal with the fact that automatic is better... I have no idea why Europeans are so stuck on using manual, but there's no sane reason for it. All it does is adds complexity for no reason.

I'm european and I agree with you hahahaha. Supposedly it's because you can better manage gas or some other silly reason. In practice there's barely any difference, and you need to have some very good habits and pay attention to it all the time. I'd say it's far more likely for a human to be using a higher shift than needed.

[sheath]

I use manual in every racer because it makes cornering a ton easier than brakes alone would. In real life, having a manual transmission has actually gotten me out of several accidents. Automatic transmissions take too long to down shift and do it unpredictably.

[TVC 15]

Manual is a complete waste of time for people who can't deal with the fact that automatic is better... I have no idea why Europeans are so stuck on using manual, but there's no sane reason for it. All it does is add complexity for no reason.
On that note, the only person I know (in real life) who drives manual is from Europe. I don't think it's a coincidence -- in the US, very, very few people have manual-shift cars. Who'd want to waste their time with that annoying complexity? It doesn't get you any actual benefit.

We’ve just had the same tired Sega Rally/Virtua Racing argument stretched out over the past 3 pages yet again, content, realism, speed etc., and you’ve just brought it to our attention you never use the manual shift system in Sega Rally.
Right fair enough, you have a choice, the game does not force you to use manual, and each to their own to some degree, but to actually play the game with a decent chance of winning your best bet is manual.

It’s no different to selecting AUTO mode in Street Fighter Alpha, the options there but you’re not getting the whole game, your essentially selecting a beginner/casual mode. By doing so you’re never going to grapple with the intricacies or nuances of gameplay.
Sega Rally certainly isn’t a full – on sim (despite some sim elements, i.e. terrain, setup adjustments) nor is Daytona or Outrun (2) yet the mechanic is there for a reason and implemented as an integral part of the game, for handling corners, power sliding etc.
I remember initially playing Daytona USA 2001 at release on DC over 10 years ago now (cripes that long ago!?) and performing terribly on automatic with braking, I do realise that games handling is a bit nerfed in some areas, but I started using the manual out of curiosity and it not only improved my game but also my enjoyment factor. Since then I always try to get a handle and feel of the driving model in different racing games.

Using manual gears, doesn’t necessarily have to imply your ‘learning to drive’ in these sims and requires you to understand the real world full intricacies of a cars setup, but the manual gear mechanism as a sub-set of this certainly bring an element of challenge and skill into playing.
I see using manual akin to learning combos in fighting games, there is a rote learning element, learning how to down shift with the right application of steering, and acceleration, and shifting up again, at key moments in a turn with precise timing. Doing so helps you’re racing lines considerably, and improves lap times.

The enemy fighter would be the bend in the road in that analogy then .

I hope that you're joking, but if you think that has anything to do with that thread, you didn't even read the thread at all, did you... I don't play sim racing games. I'd guess that a lot of those games don't even HAVE manual options! Futuristic racing games almost never have manual for instance, and that's my favourite type of racing game...
What next, are you going to complain that I always use the behind-the-car view, and never in-car?

Well that’s you being a little bit disingenuous then, I’m aware there’s probably a good 70/30, mix toward futuristic racing games over sim/arcade titles in that thread, but since the thread is about 90’s PC racing games you should rename it then, and all entries relating to arcade or sim titles should be removed.

I can’t take that thread seriously because of how wide those sorts of review formats cast there net, there too brief and promote only touching the surface of a game, and only serve to further promote the casualisation of gameplay and ideas, but I won’t pour too much scorn on you, it at least lists some interesting titles to weed out, besides the internet only promotes this form of nuggety, PR-eque sound bites of nearly everything.

I also don't trust you to say anything relevant about something like Sega Rally when you refuse to use one of its primary control methods, one that’s fairly major and opens up a whole new area of racing technique. It’s the equivalent of somebody telling me they only ever use there thumb to play bass and chastising me for playing any other way, when there’s intricacies they’d never understand from using a pick, slapping, or their fingers.

In many futuristic racing games, there is often a function related, such a slide or drift button, which simplifies but replicates the gear play mechanic, and whilst simple still requires an adequate amount of skill to use successfully, and improves your gameplay. Pod Racer is a good example of this from memory (been a while since I've played it), requring careful application of brake, acceleration and tight use of the slide/airbrake button in increasingly winding, obstacle laden courses. Its certainly more thrilling mastering the controls than constantly careening into walls in that game.

As for the real world Automatic Vs. Manual debate, thats a whole other kettle of fish relating to cost/performance. Maybe its more applicable for passenger cars, but in racing manual is a must for adequate control. How many Rally Cars do you know with automatic transmission? Automatic mode in Sega Rally is a mere concession to the Novice.

Real players go manual

[A Black Falcon]

I'm european and I agree with you hahahaha. Supposedly it's because you can better manage gas or some other silly reason. In practice there's barely any difference, and you need to have some very good habits and pay attention to it all the time. I'd say it's far more likely for a human to be using a higher shift than needed.

I'm pretty sure that that gas mileage difference thing is not true anymore. It used to be, but automatics have gotten better over time, and now there's no effective difference. There's no real reason to use manual. There are a very few models of cars that get slightly better mileage with manual, but generally it's the same. And yeah, that top manual mileage assumes perfect driving habits, which as you say are unlikely.

We’ve just had the same tired Sega Rally/Virtua Racing argument stretched out over the past 3 pages yet again, content, realism, speed etc., and you’ve just brought it to our attention you never use the manual shift system in Sega Rally.
Right fair enough, you have a choice, the game does not force you to use manual, and each to their own to some degree, but to actually play the game with a decent chance of winning your best bet is manual.

This is most certainly 100% false.

It’s no different to selecting AUTO mode in Street Fighter Alpha, the options there but you’re not getting the whole game, your essentially selecting a beginner/casual mode. By doing so you’re never going to grapple with the intricacies or nuances of gameplay.
Sega Rally certainly isn’t a full – on sim (despite some sim elements, i.e. terrain, setup adjustments) nor is Daytona or Outrun (2) yet the mechanic is there for a reason and implemented as an integral part of the game, for handling corners, power sliding etc.
I remember initially playing Daytona USA 2001 at release on DC over 10 years ago now (cripes that long ago!?) and performing terribly on automatic with braking, I do realise that games handling is a bit nerfed in some areas, but I started using the manual out of curiosity and it not only improved my game but also my enjoyment factor. Since then I always try to get a handle and feel of the driving model in different racing games.

The bad handling in Daytona for Dreamcast is the bad handling in Daytona for Dreamcast, and has nothing to do with automatic or manual.

Using manual gears, doesn’t necessarily have to imply your ‘learning to drive’ in these sims and requires you to understand the real world full intricacies of a cars setup, but the manual gear mechanism as a sub-set of this certainly bring an element of challenge and skill into playing.
I see using manual akin to learning combos in fighting games, there is a rote learning element, learning how to down shift with the right application of steering, and acceleration, and shifting up again, at key moments in a turn with precise timing. Doing so helps you’re racing lines considerably, and improves lap times.

The difference is that learning combos actually makes you better at fighting games, while learning manual doesn't make you better at driving, it just makes driving harder. Automatic will result in car control that's just as good, it's just not as hard. And I consider that a good thing for sure.

The enemy fighter would be the bend in the road in that analogy then .


Well that’s you being a little bit disingenuous then, I’m aware there’s probably a good 70/30, mix toward futuristic racing games over sim/arcade titles in that thread, but since the thread is about 90’s PC racing games you should rename it then, and all entries relating to arcade or sim titles should be removed.

What in the world are you talking about? If you don't use manual you should never play a racing game that involves cars? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

I can’t take that thread seriously because of how wide those sorts of review formats cast there net, there too brief and promote only touching the surface of a game, and only serve to further promote the casualisation of gameplay and ideas, but I won’t pour too much scorn on you, it at least lists some interesting titles to weed out, besides the internet only promotes this form of nuggety, PR-eque sound bites of nearly everything.

You should pay more attention to the format of my thread. With only one or two exceptions, all sim-racer "reviews" in that thread are just about the demos of those games, not the full versions. There's a big difference between a review of a full game and one of a demo. Beyond that you're definitely wrong; I say my opinions about the games, not just PR or something.

I also don't trust you to say anything relevant about something like Sega Rally when you refuse to use one of its primary control methods, one that’s fairly major and opens up a whole new area of racing technique. It’s the equivalent of somebody telling me they only ever use there thumb to play bass and chastising me for playing any other way, when there’s intricacies they’d never understand from using a pick, slapping, or their fingers.

I wouldn't know about that music comparison, I've never played an instrument. But for cars, I think I've already said my position on this.

In many futuristic racing games, there is often a function related, such a slide or drift button, which simplifies but replicates the gear play mechanic, and whilst simple still requires an adequate amount of skill to use successfully, and improves your gameplay. Pod Racer is a good example of this from memory (been a while since I've played it), requring careful application of brake, acceleration and tight use of the slide/airbrake button in increasingly winding, obstacle laden courses. Its certainly more thrilling mastering the controls than constantly careening into walls in that game.

Wipeout, Extreme-G 3, Ep. 1 Racer, and such do have airbrake buttons, but how is that like manual? And most other futuristic racing games don't have that, anyway.

As for the real world Automatic Vs. Manual debate, thats a whole other kettle of fish relating to cost/performance. Maybe its more applicable for passenger cars, but in racing manual is a must for adequate control. How many Rally Cars do you know with automatic transmission? Automatic mode in Sega Rally is a mere concession to the Novice.

Real players go manual

So you really are an obsessive, crazy manual-only person? Uh, whatever, that's fine for you, but saying the way you like it is the only way to play racing games is just ridiculous. And as for real life, I'm sure that automatic race cars would do okay, but people continue to use manual for mostly historical reasons...

[StarMist]

@ Barone = thanks for the videos. 56"05 is good from a dead start on the desert. I wonder if it's possible to come in 8th there with the default car. Also you're quite right about the AI workings--which I consider broken, a sort of preemptive rubberbanding; to wit, I finished one single-lap race of the Desert barely ahead of car 10 with a better time than when I had passed car 10 on the mud track between the rock faces (ie before the open gravel track where the final curve comes into place). Now I did slip up a bit on that latter example, making a worse time than I should've had, but the 10 car I'd passed did not catch up, proving your point.
Funny, I meant to ask whether you prefer the camera internal or external. A bonnet view would be nice, but shockingly for a Sega racer the internal view's (almost) perfect. I hate external views: they slow the game and lead to blind corners--except for the Wipeout series, it just does everything better, even including making helpless Brazilians worry they're reading internet posts on drugs.

On that note, the only person I know (in real life) who drives manual is from Europe.

How few people do you know? Under three?

[A Black Falcon]

How few people do you know? Under three?

Plenty. As I said, almost no one in the US actually uses manual. I'm sure the percentage of manual cars here is somewhere in the low single digits...

[Barone]

This is most certainly 100% false.

Quite the opposite...

The bad handling in Daytona for Dreamcast is the bad handling in Daytona for Dreamcast, and has nothing to do with automatic or manual.

Just like OutRun Coast to Coast, you can't properly play that game using automatic gears...

The difference is that learning combos actually makes you better at fighting games, while learning manual doesn't make you better at driving, it just makes driving harder. Automatic will result in car control that's just as good, it's just not as hard.

You're completely wrong in that part.
Take any of these games, that are not simulators AFAIK:
NFS
NFSII
NFS Porsche
NFS Underground 2
OutRun 2/Coast to Coast
Sega Rally
Daytona USA (arcade)
Daytona USA CCE (PC or Saturn)
Gran Turismo 2
...

You'll never beat my lap times in those games using automatic gears.
Having to change the gears manually may appear to make the things harder since you're not used to that but for those with practice it's natural and allows one to take the most out of the car.

May I ask you if you ever customize your cars in games like Gran Turismo?

@ Barone = thanks for the videos. 56"05 is good from a dead start on the desert. I wonder if it's possible to come in 8th there with the default car.

Thanks.
I think it's possible if you explore all the tricks with perfection. You'd have to anticipate all curves with minimum oversteering and collide laterally with every single car to "gain momentum".

Also you're quite right about the AI workings--which I consider broken, a sort of preemptive rubberbanding; to wit, I finished one single-lap race of the Desert barely ahead of car 10 with a better time than when I had passed car 10 on the mud track between the rock faces (ie before the open gravel track where the final curve comes into place). Now I did slip up a bit on that latter example, making a worse time than I should've had, but the 10 car I'd passed did not catch up, proving your point.

Yep. And Mobil 1 Rally Championship is exactly like that (both PC and PS1 versions).
It was a common practice for sometime, it's a simpler method than adjusting the AI on-the-fly according to your performance inside the lap/segment, for an example.
Speedster also uses that...

Funny, I meant to ask whether you prefer the camera internal or external. A bonnet view would be nice, but shockingly for a Sega racer the internal view's (almost) perfect. I hate external views: they slow the game and lead to blind corners--except for the Wipeout series, it just does everything better, even including making helpless Brazilians worry they're reading internet posts on drugs.

It depends on the game and the peripherals that I can use.
With a digital pad in car views that have moving steering wheel usually makes no visual sense, if know what I mean... So it will be always external views to me.
With analog controller I will choose the one with better visibility, which is usually the external view for Stock Car/Grand Touring games due to the car's structure. Daytona USA is a good exception though...
With a steering wheel I will go with the in car view if it has a proper one, no matter the visibility. It's extra cool when you have enhanced sfx with the in car view, like the gear shifting noise and/or turbo activation noise.
But I hate bumper view. So it's true in car view or external to me. I hate so many YT videos with bumper view all the way, without any cycling with the cameras during the gameplay, 'cause you can't see how the damn car model is and how the game actually run with more graphics on screen.

The external view usually gives you the advantage of seeing when the car is starting to lose the grip. This wouldn't be a problem if all games had proper force feedback or, at least, proper vibration usage. But usually they use it in a very stupid manner that doesn't help you. GT2 is a good exception, IIRC, 'cause the vibration let's you know when you're oversteering but there's no in car view anyway...
The downsides are that it's more CPU intensive and less realistic.

[jerry coeurl]

Plenty. As I said, almost no one in the US actually uses manual. I'm sure the percentage of manual cars here is somewhere in the low single digits...

About half the people I know, myself included, drive (or know how to drive) manual. This is from a fairly large sample size in Southern California. I think you're overstating things a little, here.

[A Black Falcon]

No, I'm not. A quick search found plenty of numbers proving this. The percentage of US cars that were manual was apparently 17% in 2003 (higher than I'd have thought), but it's dropped steadily ever since, and now it's in the single digits - 2010 saw 6.7% of cars sold in the US having manual transmissions, and that was the highest percentage in five years.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5487437
http://www.metafilter.com/52324/The-...ucks-in-the-US

So, overall, manual is a small and dropping percentage. It may have been 17% back in 2003, but it's under ten percent now total, and declining yearly going by that ~6% of new cars sold are manuals fact. Over 90% of the cars in the US are automatics.

[sheath]

You are completely making a fool of yourself here Black Falcon. Without Manual Transmission cars cannot handle as well. You need the ability to downshift to slow down faster without breaking as much, and to take off once the curve is finished. There is no other option here. You are wrong.

Also, trying to validate your argument on the merits of American driving standards is beyond silly.