I have. I've played MCM and MCM2, as well as a few others. Honestly though, those games play like a Beta. They're buggy, and the design has a very disconnected feel. It's as if the track team and the physics team never worked together, and in the end they just threw the two aspects together. Sure, the tracks may seem like good MX tracks, and the engine may work in theory, but rarely do the 2 come together to provide a complete, satisfying experience. Excitebike's tracks were CLEARLY tailored around the engine, as they play perfectly. Most sections have a few different lines, with faster ones being more difficult, and then you optimize that line through jumping and throttle technique to achieve maximum speed. There's multiple levels of metagaming within EBs core gameplay.I judge from your comments thus far that you have never played a PC MX game before. The great thing about PC MX games is they allow user created content. Your comments about Excitebike "ha(ving) interesting, varied tracks layouts and locales, variation between riders," reveal that you must be unfamiliar with the 1000's of tracks, gear skins, bike skins, etc that are available for the average PC MX game.
But how do those actually affect the gameplay? Sure, aesthetic variance is nice, but the game still plays the same.For MX Sim, for instance, there have been a number of new rider models and new bike models, nevermind things such as new helmets, wheel's, or track objects, created by the community.
No it doesn't, but aesthetics don't really provide a whole lot of depth. Repainting your house doesn't change the architecture.I can guarentee you that Excitebike does not allow you to IMPORT NEW MODELS into the engine. Honestly just think about what that means in terms of the "depth" of the game.
New tracks are a great thing. The only problem is finding really good, inspired, well-developed user content. It's out there, but in general, most stuff is average at best.While you are thinking of that, think about what it means to be constantly be receiving new tracks for the game.
Online multiplayer does add quite a bit of depth so long as the is more depth to be explored.Then think about what online multiplayer means to the "depth" of the game.
In terms of actual gameplay, Excitebike is still a remarkable achievement. It's incredibly balanced, well-playing, and fun, even to this day. It's accessible, with levels of depth beyond the superficial. It's a solid game. Everything just works, and it works exactly as it was intended to. It succeeds in all aspects of game design. MCM feels almost like a fan game. It feels incomplete, low-budget, and as if it works built with freeware utilities rather than proprietary software.All in all, I'm not sure how a person could argue that "Excitebike" provides a more in depth gaming experience, from any perspective. If you think it's fun, that's cool - I played it for a while back in college myself. I must say I considered it a joke compared to MCM2 - which is 3 generations old compared to MXS. But that was my opinion.
I -do- think MXS is fun, and I -am- giving it a chance. I'm going to keep playing it and get as good as I can, and continue to watch it develop. If it keeps developing well, then I'll buy it. I'm just saying that it could be better, and I'm not sure I can justify paying over $40 for it as it is. Maybe in a few months, or a year, however long. As soon as it shows me that it is reaching it's potential, I'll buy it. Hopefully the demo will someday include the full version's physics engine, because it's hard to judge just how much better the full game is. For all I know the full version fixes everything I have an issue with and is worth buying right now, but I won't know because I haven't played it.I think if you gave MXS a chance, you might end up thinking it's fun too. It certainly has more possibility then Excitebike. You probably didn't think Excitebike was THAT great the first time you played it, did you??
