Fatal Inertia Preview

Ludicrous speed, go!

In Fatal Inertia, the first game from Japanese publisher Koei's new Canadian development studio, you drive futuristic hovering race vehicles at ridiculous speeds and fire weapons to impede the progress of your opponents.

In simple terms, this means that Fatal Inertia is going to be dogged from the outset by the basic assumption that it's just another WipEout clone. All the ingredients are there, after all; even the visual style of the game owes a certain something to WipEout's Designers Republic-influenced graphic design.

However, a few races around Fatal Inertia's varied environments reveals that there's a far closer parallel to be drawn than WipEout. In fact, in many regards, the game departs dramatically from the WipEout formula - especially in terms of its tracks, which are criss-crossed with shortcuts, obstacles and so on, a far cry from WipEout's carefully crafted smooth-walled tunnels.

As such, the parallel we ended up drawing after about half an hour with the game wasn't with WipEout. Instead, it was with Mario Kart - a game which the development team profess to be huge fans of, and one to which Fatal Inertia may well be a surprisingly solid next-gen homage.

They've Gone To Plaid

'Fatal Inertia' Screenshot 1

You can tell it's the future, because everything glows purple and blue. That's what the future will be like, so you'd better start appreciating purple.

The Mario Kart comparison holds pretty true for the bulk of Fatal Inertia's design decisions. The game may be futuristic and gritty, rather than bright and cartoonish, but Koei's intentions are clearly in line with Nintendo's despite this - the game is meant to be simple to pick up and play for anyone, but full of advanced techniques that will take a while to master.

From what we've seen, Fatal Inertia makes a damned good stab at achieving exactly this. The basic controls for your vehicle are incredibly intuitive for anyone who has played a racing game before, and feel responsive and enjoyable. The stages you race around are intricate in their layout, but it's rare to get lost (we only managed this a couple of times on one of the more open stages), and once you grasp the fact that your craft has solid up and down flight controls as well as standard steering, zooming around the tracks is pretty straightforward and enjoyable.

However, there are tricks and subtleties to it - partially in terms of the various shortcuts, which call upon players to work out the most favourable routes as they play, but also in terms of the handling itself. Introducing up and down as concepts alongside left and right makes a significant change to the handling we're all used to from the likes of F-Zero and WipEout. The beginner won't even notice it, but after a few races we had picked up the fact that pressing close to the ground gives a speed boost traded off against increased risk of pranging your nose against a rock, while careful adjustments to your height can let you whiz through track sections that looked impassable otherwise.

'Fatal Inertia' Screenshot 2

The developer has clearly chosen frame-rate and draw distance over exceptionally pretty graphics - although we do rather fancy the water effects.

Weapons, too, start out simple and get more complex as you play with them. Unlike most combat racing games, weapons in Fatal Inertia are designed to screw around with the physics of your opponent and impede their progress, rather than simply destroying them. When you start playing, just firing weapons at will works fine; but as you progress, you'll need to think more carefully about what each weapon actually does.

The most common weapons in the games are all, essentially, magnets. One type fires out a shower of powerful, heavy magnets, which attach to an enemy craft and proceed to weigh down the vehicle realistically - so, for example, if you hit his left wing, his handling will drag heavily to the left. It's more subtle than a shotgun, but no less lethal when applied properly.

Even traditional weapons get a magnetic makeover - the rocket launcher no longer blows things up, but rather attaches itself to an enemy vehicle and then fires a powerful rocket boost. Get one of those stuck to an enemy off-centre, and it'll almost certainly send them into a spin and then promptly into a rock-face. A secondary fire mode, however, actually attaches the rocket to your own tail - granting you a powerful but tricky to master boost.

It's clear, then, that a fairly solid physics model is the second string to Fatal Inertia's bow, along with the Mario Kart style "easy to pick up, hard to master" approach. This mostly manifests itself in the behaviour of your craft - they pick up locational damage as you whiz around, too, which can result in a lot of F-Zero style retirements if you're bumping and grinding your way along too many cliff faces. However, there are also some nods to track physics, especially in the form of boulders, stalactites, and so on which roll around or break off convincingly if disturbed by passing craft, causing hazards for others.

My brains are going into my feet!

The other major string in this bow, if the analogy stretches quite that far, is that Fatal Inertia offers a level of customisation to its vehicles which will appeal greatly to anyone of a tinkering mindset. Each of the initial craft fits a basic racing archetype (fast but hard to handle, slow but heavily armoured, and so on), but as you progress through the race tournaments that make up the single-player game, you'll unlock a huge variety of bits and pieces to customise your vehicle.

This customisation isn't just about tweaking the stats of the craft, though - the team has been careful to include a huge range of visual changes that can be made to each vehicle, ensuring that you'll be able to create a fairly unique look to bring online and race against others. The game supports eight players online, the same number that it throws onto the track in each single player race. Actually, that's a point of minor concern; we'd rather hoped for F-Zero-style races with dozens of opponents, and the smaller number being thrown around by Fatal Inertia could lead to some races where you don't see much of the other players.

'Fatal Inertia' Screenshot 3

Being plastered with heavy magnets will weigh you down and drag you into the ground. Do a barrel roll to shake 'em off.

Graphically, this Unreal 3 engine-based game isn't going to be winning any awards; the art direction isn't terribly inspired, and the graphics themselves are sitting right in the middle of Average Country by the standards of other next-gen titles. However, Koei appears to have focused its efforts on framerate rather than fancy effects, which is probably the right decision for this sort of game. The build we played seemed silky smooth even in busy parts of the track; if the final build can keep up this framerate consistently, a lot of criticism of the visuals will be forgiven.

Perhaps more importantly, the game does offer plenty of variety in its tracks. Six major areas make up the game's content - each with a unique type of terrain, ranging from an icy Arctic shoreline to a rocky Grand Canyon style area riddled with huge caves. Within each area, there are eight or nine courses, and several of them are somewhat specialised - such as Havoc courses, which boast far more weapon pads than normal, or Navigator courses, which focus on racing over combat and require a deft hand on the analogue stick.

'Fatal Inertia' Screenshot 4

Some of the tighter cave systems pose a tricky challenge from a racing perspective, and balance out the combat-heavy sections nicely.

As a first game from a new studio, Fatal Inertia is looking rather promising. Although it's being launched into a genre which is full of competition from very highly regarded franchises such as F-Zero and WipEout, there's not actually been much action on the high-speed racing front in the past couple of years.

Above all, the team's intriguing decision to look to Mario Kart for its inspiration could well pay off nicely by bringing MK's unrivalled gameplay mechanics to a setting that's arguably more palatable for many Xbox owners. That all depends, of course, on Fatal Inertia's ability to live up to the promise we saw in a fairly solid preview build; a question we'll tackle in more depth closer to the launch of the game.

Fatal Inertia is out on Xbox 360 in September, with a PS3 version to follow later on. There's a demo of the game on Xbox Live Marketplace right now for 360 owners.

Comments (54) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Daymare #1 5 years ago

    How's the demo, anyone? Worth downloading?
  • souljah #2 5 years ago

    Ohhh, looks promising.
  • woodnotes #3 5 years ago

    Eh the demo is dreadful - a complete laughing joke across every gaming forum in the land.
  • Kryon #4 5 years ago

    Lol so let me get this straight, the PS3 is now getting 360 ports of PS3 exclusive launch titles. PS3lol.
  • Daymare #5 5 years ago

  • captainrentboy #6 5 years ago

    Wasn't the demo awful though? The negative comments were flying everywhere on the Xbox forums, so much so infact that I didn't even bother downloading it.
  • Scimarad #7 5 years ago

    The demo was bloody awful!
  • Dizzy #8 5 years ago

    Demo was crap.. looks like the full game might be better. Lets hope so.
  • Fernando #9 5 years ago

    avoid like the plague, PS3 owners arent missing a thing

    awful framerate too, another victim of UE3. Koei cant seem to run the game right on the engine.
    Edited by 1 at 28/08/07 @ 08:35
  • Beano #10 5 years ago

    Tried the 360 demo ... it was simply terrible!!

    Bad framerate, tearing, crappy controls, sub-par graphics... bring on Wipeout Pulse and HD instead :)
  • manuel_garcia #11 5 years ago

    I have to agree with the majority of the commentors on this one for once, the demo was shockingly bad in almost every way.
  • Shinji #12 5 years ago

    I confess that I haven't seen the demo - downloading it now so I can have a shot at it and see how it compares to the build I played. I certainly didn't notice any framerate problems or tearing in that, so it's possible that this is just another example of a demo being thrown together from code that's far, far too early.
  • DaM #13 5 years ago

    I found the demo practically unplayable. Having said that, the vast majority of demos, from PS1 days on have put me off the game. Why do they bother?!
  • Max_Powers #14 5 years ago

    I have to agree with everyone here: the demo was bloody awful. I can't see how this game can ever be any good.
  • Caimbeul #15 5 years ago

    The Demo was absolute Shite! - deleted it after two laps.
  • Eighthours #16 5 years ago

    Yeah Shinji, it'd be good if you could give us some kind of comparison between the build you played and the demo.

    This has already been reviewed in Xbox World 360 and got pretty pilloried. Wonder which build they had.
  • bluebird #17 5 years ago

    It is interesting to read that it is silky smooth now, as the demo framerate and response was too slow to make the game control well. It might turn this game around, although one of the things that makes Wipeout work for me is that sense of weight and interaction with the track. One to watch.
  • Beano #18 5 years ago

    "Yeah Shinji, it'd be good if you could give us some kind of comparison between the build you played and the demo."

    I agree- please compare it to the demo and let us know if it has improved ;)
  • The_Pope #19 5 years ago

    The demo was DIRE. This style of game actually even pre-dates Wipeout. This implementation, though pretty, really reveals that we all played this 10+ years ago. I hate to think of the dozens of guys that spend months making this game, because nobody will buy it.
  • Shinji #20 5 years ago

    My 360 is sucking it down as we speak - I'll get back to you! Certainly the build I played didn't deserve this level of hate over the framerate though; I was quite taken with how smooth it was, whereas it sounds like the demo is bloody painful.
  • hamstand #21 5 years ago

    demo was a sack of dogballs in every respect. absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
    Edited by 1 at 28/08/07 @ 09:42
  • Kami #22 5 years ago

    "Stop this thing, I order you, STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP!"
  • AcidSnake #23 5 years ago

    You left out "secure all animals in the zoo"...
  • Greebo #24 5 years ago


    If the demo is so different from the release version, they need to get a new demo out quick! I wouldn't even give this a look in now, even with good reviews . . .
  • pjmaybe #25 5 years ago

    I can't believe anything positive was said about this. It's abortionate.

    Peej
  • Valver #26 5 years ago

    The demo was a shambolic stinking dog poo of a thing. I resented the seconds of my life lost I spent trying it - I can never get them back! Amazed that the preview is actually quite favourable. I *want* a decent Wipeout style racing game, so I'm still hoping this can make a turnaround and be fun. But I'm sceptical!
  • bloodflowers #27 5 years ago

    Yeah - demo on marketplace has very choppy visuals, it managed 30fps "sometimes", but more usually not. High speed racing games need 60fps, if it's not pushing that, it's not worth looking at. I'd be very surprised if it's been radically improved since the demo build...

    Repeat: these games need 60fps or they need to go in the bin.
  • Snooz #28 5 years ago

    These hovercraft games look like the simplest games to make just add futuristic design and make a dodgy controlsystem and no one could say handling is unrealistic in any way.

    Althoug the old game "ballistic" was kind of cool because you were driving "hover-bikes" that had no upper speed limit except for the obstacles in the tube-tracks.
  • Snooz #29 5 years ago

    double post
    Edited by 1 at 28/08/07 @ 10:53
  • President_Weasel #30 5 years ago

    Spaceballs? Oh sh*t, there goes the neighbourhood!
  • BadBoyBonner #31 5 years ago

    The demo was like an assault on the eyeballs.

    If there is a massive disparity between the two (which seems likely – as even the most benighted rube can tell the difference between silky smooth and a staccato slideshow) then it begs the question as to why it was released at all?

    I think if the disparity is true, another demo should be readied which has to automatically download for anyone trying to play the old one (with an explanation before it sets off).

    And pull the old one off immediately.

    I thought some kind of mind bending drug’s had been surreptitiously administered pre-demo when I read “The developer has clearly chosen frame-rate and draw distance over exceptionally pretty graphics - although we do rather fancy the water effects.”
  • Darren #32 5 years ago

    Yep, the demo was ghastly... an erratic framerate complete with loads of last-gen popup, texture draw-in issues and v-sync tearing complimented by terrible controls and an overall blandness to the entire thing. Has 4/10 written all over it.
  • BadBoyBonner #33 5 years ago

    I wouldn't have given it 4/10 if it had been an XBL release.

    Your too generous Darren.


  • Lukus #34 5 years ago

    After the terrible demo, this preview is a pleasant surprise as I'd hoped the game would be good. You've gotta wonder why the decision was made to release such a shoddy demo.
  • McGeeza #35 5 years ago

    ...the first (and probably last) game from Japanese publisher Koei's new Canadian development studio...
  • Scimarad #36 5 years ago

    So, Shinji, how does it compare?
  • thebuzzard #37 5 years ago

    I tried the demo on 360 and it was terrible, dodgy framerate for fairly unexciting graphics and gameplay.
  • MaxiSleep #38 5 years ago

    Demo sucks on every level it is possible to suck.
  • Shinji #39 5 years ago

    Okay - that demo is pretty bloody abysmal. I'm guessing the code I played was a much later build, because it had better framerate, much less ugly popping in the textures, and significantly better handling (although that might be partially down to the fact that I selected heavier, more controllable vehicles, whereas there's no vehicle select in the demo).

    The tracks in the demo are also crap. They're incredibly short and badly designed compared to the tracks I played, which were generally much longer and full of shortcuts and alternate routes. I can only assume that the team created a tiny, claustrophobic track to try and keep the demo download size down, but it really doesn't show the game off terribly well.

    Crap demo, in other words. I'm not saying Fatal Inertia is going to be a game of the year - from what I saw, though, it's a solid and reasonably enjoyable effort, whereas this demo is just a steaming pile.
  • Scimarad #40 5 years ago

  • speedjack #41 5 years ago

    Which begs the question... why release such a sub-standard reflection of your games worth ?

    Demos are meant to be selling tools and this one seems to have the opposite impact.

    Same with Forza... Crap demo, great game.
  • allen #42 5 years ago

    hopefully devs will get used to releasing demos soon.

    must hurt a lot when they fuck up so badly releasing an old build with big issues.
    same with heavenly sword + tearing issues etc. =[
  • glaeken #43 5 years ago

    The track in the demo was aweful but in truth I did not see much promise in the underlying game even given the crap track. It did just not feel fun.

    I feel sorry for the guys who have been working on this as I just think its going to get a really bad reception unless they can radically change what turns out to be the finished product.
  • Nikanoru #44 5 years ago

    One can only hope it'll be anywhere near as good as Episode 1 Racer on the N64... I played that game to death.
  • patchbox360 #45 5 years ago

    nah, someone is fibbing
  • citizenHUNTER #46 5 years ago

    The demo was horrendous quite frankly, and I skimmed through the preview and the comments above but no one mentioned the most obvious parallel, that forgotten Xbox gem Quantum Redshift. This game on a next gen console looks bloody rubbish compared to Quantum Redshift, and that game played pretty damn well too. I only had issues with the visual design and the ship designs, but it was a solid, smooth, ridiculously fast and intense futuristic racer, this game seems to be a bit pap by comparison, though if they released a better demo I might give it a go since things seem to have improved with time as they usually do. I hope the demo was just rushed and the final game is much better.
  • RexRunti #47 5 years ago

    @citizenHunter

    i too was hoping for a Quantum Redshift 2. In fact give us Quantum Redshift 2!
  • Der_tolle_Emil #48 5 years ago

    Good to hear that the full game is indeed much better than the demo. I thought the demo was horrible but I am a bit interested in this game, so not everything lost then.
  • lambtron #49 5 years ago

    "i had to look twice at the gfx on the homepage for this preview... "

    Me too :D
  • convercide #50 5 years ago

    I can't breathe in this thing.
  • Razz #51 5 years ago

    Isn't this a PS3 Exclusive? o_O
  • 3william56 #52 5 years ago

    I thought the PS3 version had been abandoned because of all those unreal engine problems a few months back? As well as the bad XBL demo, the trailer/footage originally available on the PSN looked very dire: scenery exploding in half a dozen huge rectangular 2D sheets went out with the PS1.

    Still reckon it will be pwned by WipEout HD. Especially for the price...
  • kangarootoo #53 5 years ago

    @speedjack and allen

    Demos are a strange beast. Often as not the dev won't get to choose what goes in. That descision is often made by the publisher.

    Also, its worth bearing in mind that a demo is almost always created before the game is actually finished. In light of that it is surely to be expected that some aspects may still be a bit ropey. I totally agree that a demo is a marketing tool, but it differs fundamentally from a normal advert in that it is hands on.

    A coffee advert doesn't actually depend on the coffee tasting nice at the time the advert is made, it just has to taste nice by the time it turns up on the shop shelves. Most ad campaigns that are ran in the months before a product hits the shelves don't actually depend on the product itself being in any way complete.

    Now car sales rooms will allow customers to test drive vehicles, which is essentially a demo, except they wouldn't dream of letting anyone do that until the car production process was actually complete. Imagine sending out a potential customer in a car that was still awaiting final tweaks. "It drove like shite and gobbled up fuel" says Mr/Ms test driver. "Well too right" says car manufacturer, "it wasn't finished".

    Sooo, the point I am getting to. There are a few devs who have in recent times started releasing demos after the final product has actually been completed and released. I for one think this is a great thing for several reasons.

    1. The main reason (with my dev hat on) is that it allows the dev team to wortk on the product instead of pouring manhours into making a demo. Schedules rarely include demo building from the sttart, so those manhours have to come from somewhere. Either they come from the pool assigned to making the actual product, or they come from the teams personal lives. Neither is acceptable in my book.

    2. The second reason (most important if I was wearing my gamer hat) is that the demo is far more likely to represent the actual game if it is created after the development of that game has been completed. So we as gamers get a fair representation of the game we are thinking of buying, which works in our favour as we don't dismiss some gem of gaming fun just because a poor demo misrepresented the title to us.

    We get very hung up on demos coming out way in advance of the title release date. I understand this - I get enthusiastic about certain games and I want titbits as much as the next gamer. But its not like we can actually act on the demo until the game is released, not if we accept that the purpose of the demo is to promote the game to us and secure a sale (rather than just giving us some gaming time for free, which is nice but not really why the demo in question was created).

    Anyway, various ramblings from me about demos end here.
  • Devil-_-King #54 4 years ago

    I think the PS3-version is better than the Xbox360-version.

    At the PS3-version there are a lot of innovations...