Talk:Ridge Racer

The Reiko Nagase thing

Legend has it that Reiko's face is that of the artist who created her. The rumour claims that it was due to some sort of scanning process, or lately that it simply made it easier for the guy to draw her (Surely there'd be plenty of female references, though). I've heard it crop up now and again, so it seems to have become something of a videogaming urban myth. Anyone got an image of Reiko's creator's face to put this one to rest, once and for all? Sockatume (not logged in)

Ai Fukami is better anyway.

Well, hardly, probably Kei Yoshimizu just used his face to get ehr expressions right. Majoria (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC) hello peps —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisfoxman (talk • contribs) 01:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

I will hopefully improve this article soon. Does look like a mess at the moment. --Thorpe 12:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as no-one has taken the initiative I will begin the process of both cleaning up and de-stubing this article. Also, I am planning to either remove or condense the criticism section of this article, due to the fact that Ridge Racer is an arcade racing game, so there shouldn't be any expectation that the content of the game is realistic. Post any arguments here in the talk.--Ridge Racer 06:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

R:Racing Evolution

I have recently re-added information about this game to the article after being removed for a while. Now, a lot of users, mostly anons, have been reverting this game information. Regardless of anyone's POV this game is part of the Ridge Racer series. If anyone has any objections in the future, start a vote on here on the talk page, otherwise the next time this information is removed, I will be forced to seek page protection. - Ridge Racer 07:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

WRONG ! Saying that R: Racing Evolution is part of the Ridge Racer series is simply YOUR opinion and YOUR point-of-view. The Ridge Racer games are arcade racers while R: Racing Evolution is a sim racer, they're simply not the same type of game. I've never seen anything where Namco stated that R: Racing Evolution was part of the Ridge Racer series, unless you can show show official proof of your claim then your assertion is nothing more than your personal opinion and not valid. 15:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Ridge Racer console series numbering doesn't support R: Racing Evolution (which came out in 2003) as being part of the series:

Ridge Racer (1994)
Ridge Racer Revolution (#2, 1995)
Rage Racer (#3, 1996)
Ridge Racer Type 4 (1998)
Ridge Racer V (2000)
Ridge Racer 6 (2005)

15:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realized after I made this post that I couldn't actually find proof that R: Racing Evolution is a Ridge Racer game. Which, is why I didn't revert it a third time when it was deleted. However, once the game has it's own article, I think that it would be relevant to link to it from this one. - Ridge Racer 00:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted to point out that your claim of series numbering is inaccurate , because it leaves out Ridge Racer 2 (Revolution and two are not the same) as well as Rave Racer (since you also count Rage Racer) and also Ridge Racer 64, regardless of any of the portable ports. So please, in the future you may want to calm down about this, as Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, add their own information, or edit yours, of which not everyone will agree with you in which case you must seek consensus. Lashing out at others will cause other users to disrespect you in the future. - Ridge Racer 04:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The list is of the major console games, that's what it says in the sentence right before the list. Ridge Racer 2 and Rave Racer are arcade games. There was no need to include minor games in the series which have Ridge Racer in their name. Also you are the one who needs to calm down, you're just mad because your inaccurate info has been called into question with solid evidence. Note R: Racing Evolution really has no relevance to Ridge Racer as it is not an arcade racing game.

I see the reasoning behind your numbering scheme, but I think it is unfair for you to accuse me of being mad and suggesting that I need to calm down, after I apologised. Now, I will stop posting to this thread regardless of any comments you make afterwards, because I do not want this to erupt into a flame war. - Ridge Racer 04:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a Ridge Racer game, although more of a side game than anything. I've made the article here.

On another note, I found the article of Reiko Nagase. Since she has a article, should I make the articles for Rena Hayami and Gina Cavalli...? -Zero^Talk 16:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Ridge Racer series of games are arcade racers, R: Racing Evolution is a sim racer in the same category as Gran Turismo. Unless someone can provide link to something where Namco states it's part of the series then it's safe to say it's not since it's definitely a different type of game.

Um...okay. Have you even played it...? It has a arcade mode and there is no sim values whatsoever. The controls are also identical, and it features trademark racing women. You describe the game as if you've never played it. And the "R" inserted into the title is an obvious tip-off. -Zero^Talk 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a sim racer to me: http://www.namco.com/games/rracingevolution/ http://ps2.ign.com/objects/566/566214.html http://ps2.gamespy.com/playstation-2/r-racing-evolution/

Do you have evidence to the contrary ? Wanting it to be part of the Ridge Racer series doesn't make it so.

No. Did yon chap ever consider to speculate that the Evolution in the title is present for a reason...? -Zero^Talk 15:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Located some lovely sources. This source from ign says at the proceeding top of the page: Also known as: Ridge Racer: Racing Evolution (spin-off concept title). This review from Gamespot says: When it comes to racing games, much of Namco's recent focus has been on its popular motorcycle racing series for the PlayStation 2, MotoGP. But the company also has a history with racing of the four-wheeled variety with the seemingly dormant Ridge Racer series. R: Racing Evolution is Namco's latest, and it's an entirely different beast that has more in common with Namco's motorcycle efforts than with the more arcade-friendly racing the Ridge Racer series is known for. This source from official statments by Namco verifys the game was created by the exact same team that developed the Ridge Racer series, and yet another source compounds upon this with similar statements. If that's not sufficent, a quick google search [1] will spot unanimous statements detailing it as a iteration belonging to the Ridge Racer series. It may not be as arcade savvy as its predecessors, but its still Ridge Racer. -Zero^Talk 16:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in the official statement from Namco is there a claim that this game is part of the Ridge Racer series. Just because it was done by the same team doesn't mean anything, is Moto GP part of the Ridge Racer series ? There is already an article for R: Racing Evolution, why isn't this enough ? Clearly many people aren't going to accept the claim that this game is part of the Ridge Racer without a concrete statement from Namco saying as much so why keep pushing it ?

It most likely is not a official statement, because the company expects you to use commonsense. Its really quite simple. The "R" in the title stands for something. The "Evolution: in the title only furthur supports the claim. According to the meaning of the word Evolution, it means to: evolution is the process by which novel traits arise in populations and are passed on from generation to generation. I mean, you can not evolve form nothing. The hints are all there. If wikipedia were to wait for an official statemtn for evey obvious quandry, we would be in quite a pickle. If the title were a sperate series, the company would have made a notification (Moto GP was) and the title would not build off existing play options.

Its a Ridge Racer title. Please desist these baseless claims in view of youur own dislike of the title. I'm afraid not everything in this world is spelled out for us. -Zero^Talk 11:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who needs to desist in your baseless fanboy claims. Either provide real proof of this or stop making a claim driven by personal opinion and supposition instead of fact. The Ridge Racer series are arcade racers, a sim racer with a minor arcade mode doesn't count unless Namco says it counts and as far as I can tell Namco never made such a claim (I did check their website). As I understand it Namco made R: Racing Evolution in an attempt to compete with sim racers like Gran Tursimo and they weren't successful with it so they went back to doing Ridge Racer games. Clearly they're different types of racing games, you can't deny that so please stop making this claim unless you can provide real proof to support it.

To be just clear, I'm not a fanboy by any length of the imagination. I don't even like the game that much.

Regarding sources, now, I just did that above with several and, more than likely, others are scattered about the net. We're not getting anywhere, so I've inquired for a third opinion on this. In the meantime, I've provided a few more sources on this: This source more or less spells it out in clear black in white: "Namco has already proven itself as a dab hand at the arcade racer; previous iterations of Ridge Racer were notable for some utterly glorious powersliding fun, alongside that incredibly irritating commentary. However...Tastes change, and post-Gran Turismo it seems what everyone's really after is a more serious, mature, chin-stroking approach. We don't necessarily approve, but be that as it may, Namco's R: Racing Evolution is reputedly something of a departure from the simple delights of previous outings, with the developer opting for a simulation, rather than an arcade feel. Can R: Racing match up to the forthcoming, formidable Gran Turismo 4? Well, it would be nice to see Polyphony Digital's most wanted facing a bit of a challenge, though R:RE is destined for Xbox and GameCube as well as PS2. Enjoy the shots; expect to see R: Racing Evolution in Europe sometime in March 2004 published by EA."

Here's another source, a interview with Isao Nakamura. He verifys this as well. And yet another Source blatently says it in black and white: Some new images of Namco's latest addition to the Ridge Racer series at Impress Watch. Looks more anime styled, with far better car models than before. -Zero^Talk 16:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And, speaking of alledged Fanboy sources, I've provided 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 sources. Eight sources. Eight sources supporting my claim, and you have not provided any countering claims or any shread of doubt regarding them. Perhaps you could give us one that tells us otherwise. Concerning sourced content on wikipeda, talk is quite cheap for the most part. Misled rants don't go too far [2], my friend.-Zero^Talk 17:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Third Opinion

(bangs head off keyboard) Done yet? Okay, I can see a difference of opinion here, but just keep it cool people. Well, I'm not a great fan of Ridge Racer (I played the DS version for about 10 seconds and crashed) but as far as all the extensive reviews in magazines I've read, have considered a R:Racing Evolution a RR title.

Facts for this claim:

• Interview with Localization team here. When the developing team was asked:

"Being a Ridge Racer, this wouldn't be our kind of game. But being car fans it becomes our kind of game." and the team responded by saying:

"The original designer, Hideo Teramoto. He's the director of R: RE and he wanted different types of racing. That's why we have a variety of racing. You have access to different prototypes and other kinds of sports car and unlike the competition, which will go unmentioned; we don't have a kitchen sink approach to having a certain number of cars. We're not trying to compete with numbers; you really can't keep up. So, what we're doing is to really focus on gameplay and to provide racing challenges so that people can really appreciate and enjoy racing--the driving experience on a console, a video game. That's where we're putting the most amount of emphasis. The most important thing is the racing experience, to understand and to give more or less an emotional experience"

• • Things this shows
    • Same director, logic dictates same game
    • Explaining why it's different, would only do this if referring to a same game of the series
    • No saying "It's not a new RR"

• Other notes supporting this -
  • It's called "R:Racing" kinda like "Ridge Racer", what else could the R stand for?
  • Similar game mechanics/controls
  • Same style

Hopefully that has settled this, sure you could re-work but whatever. As it stands, no matter if R:RE is a RR title or not, it's close enough to merit a mention within this article. If it isn't a sequel, it's at least a second pillar in the RR series. Like cheese and onion and ready salted crisps, both different but both very connected. Please don't go into white rage over this, it's just a game. I know you both have strong sides on the matter, but can you please just come to a compromise, agreeing it's a valid nod to RR and neither write "R:RE is the sequel to RR" or "R:RE has nothing to do with RR".

If you have any othwer points on the matter (listing them below would help) please make them, and if you both can settle maturely without any more fights, I'll close the matter without another mediator having to be involved. I'll come and check how things go, and cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Trying hard to fit stuff to your liking aren't you ? The text on Namco's own page (http://racing-evolution.com/news/shipsretail.html) doesn't make any statement that this is part of the Ridge Racer series, it says that it was developed by the same team. A game being developed by the same team doesn't automatically make part of the same series, consider are Lumines and Meteos part of the same series ? Heck the guy who designed Pac-Man also designed Gee Bee, Bomb Bee and Cuite Q and later designed Libble Rabble, are you going to say that all of those games are related to Pac-Man ? Also the majority of these links are third-party reviews and really don't count as a definitive statement.

Who is to say that R: Racing Evolution doesn't refer to the main character Rena's evolution from ambulance driver to race car driver ?

Finally if someone provided a link to a first-party source (meaning Namco the developer and publisher) saying that it is part of the Ridge Racer then so be it, otherwise based upon the gameplay it's simply too different from the Ridge Racer games to be counted as part of the series. All of the Ridge Racer games except for two of them have "Ridge Racer" in their name and the other two (Rage Racer and Rave Racer) are unquestionably part of the series. If you so desperately want to mention R: Racing Evolution as a side game or something in the history then fine, but it's not part of the true Ridge Racer series.

Also similar controls means nothing, heck Outrun 2006 Coast 2 Coast has similar controls to Ridge Racer, what does that prove ?

This statement was added to the interesting facts section:

"A related game is R: Racing Evolution, released by Namco in 2003 on the PlayStation 2 and GameCube consoles. Although some of the classic Ridge Racer elements are retained, the emphasis is on simulation type driving and having an appreciation of the forces that affect a track car."

That's fair enough, I will go as far as saying it's related (sort of) simply because it's a Namco car racing game with a similar graphical look to Ridge Racer V but it's not part of the Ridge Racer series, again you can't deny it's a different type of racing game. ALL of the reviews agree that it's more like Gran Turismo than Ridge Racer.

Yes, I know. Its an offshoot game. But the "R" stands for Ridge Racer. I replaced the link, but made certian to label it as such. -Zero^Talk 22:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

MMZ called me in to offer a third opinion, and, after reviewing the links offered and the lengthy arguments, I don't see where it says that R: Racing Evolution is a proper Ridge Racer game, or that the R in R:RE stands for "Ridge" or "Ridge Racer." The links offered simply attest that it was developed by the same developers as Ridge Racer (and in the same breath attest that the same team did MotoGP; is R:RE a MotoGP game?)

Now, it is appropriate to note R:RE's existance and differences in this article, as it was developed by the same team and has a number of similarities. I do not, however, see anything to support quotes like "R:Racing Evolution (short for Ridge Racing: Evolution)..."

My suggestion would be to separate the list in this article to "Main series" and "Spin-offs", and put R:RE in the latter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

R: Racing Evolution has been removed again, please do NOT put it back in the list without definitive proof from Namco saying that it is part of the Ridge Racer series. It is quite ridiculous to keep insisting that a sim racer is part of an arcade racer series without such proof.

According to Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:REF, and WP:DR, my sources are more than sufficent to prove my point. You've yet to provide any that rebutes it, except your word, which does simply not wash here at wikipedia. Could you provide some sources saying that the series was arcade only...? And more immediate, could I ask you provide sources, that contrast my own..?

You seem a veteren and knowledgeable on the subject, no doubt about that. But wikipedia rarely relies on such things. If you wish to make a proper argument, you must provide sources that can compete with my own. I asked you this before, and you have not yet provided one. I still await a proper rebuttal. -Zero^Talk 06:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's a different genre than the rest of the Ridge Racer series (sim vs arcade) doesn't necessarily mean it's not part of the Ridge Racer series. If that were so, then by the same logic, the Metroid Prime games would not be part of the Metroid series, because they're first-person shooter/adventures as opposed to side-scrolling action/adventures. And what about all the Mario spinoff titles? Would you say games like Super Mario Kart, Mario Party and Mario Smash Football aren't part of the Mario series?

Back on topic: in the Chapter 1 intro movie, it says "RCEMS - Ridge City Emergency Medical Service" on the side of Rena's ambulance. That would seem to indicate the game is set in the Ridge Racer universe.

We seem to be going nowhere fast, however, so I propose the following compromise: remove R:Racing from the bulleted list of games, but move the info in the "Interesting Facts" section regarding the game to the "Ridge Racer games" section, below the bulleted list. --Lumina83 08:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Don't see the point of that. All signs point to it being an valid member of the series, just a bit of an oddball. General concensus on the talkpage seems to geared towards it being a valid member of the RR family as well, abielt not a "straight" sequel. I purpose leaving it as is, as I already made a note of it being a off-shoot game by its entry. Now if yon anon chap can provide sources dictating drarastically otherwise, then we can consider another course of action. Until then I see no reason to comprimise in the face of overwhelming established sources and simple common sense and reasoning.-Zero^Talk 10:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Tried the compromise already and will try it again but nothing will satisfy MMZ, he is being really ridiculous about this. So far he has only provided loads of supposition and even his sources all agree the game is different from the Ridge Racer games. Additionally some rather ludicrous statements have been made such as it being developed by the same team automatically making it part of the Ridge Racer series. I don't understand the sheer childish desperation to say that R: Racing Evolution is part of the Ridge Racer series, clearly this is a debatable claim and failing any definitive statement one way or the other from Namco then it is quite reasonable due to the differences to say that it is not part of the series but mention it in the Ridge Racer article. 70.231.132.250 15:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way the Metroid and Mario arguments are invalid, those games actually have Metroid and Mario in their names. If this game actually had Ridge in its name then there wouldn't be a question but it doesn't and there's a good reason why Namco didn't put Ridge in its name, it's because it a different type of racing game. Please end this debate and leave both articles as they are now. 15:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I happen to consider myself quite approchable Mr. Anon. Ridiculous..? I won't deny it. ludicrous..? Perhaps. But I have developed the only logical thesis argument in this discussion. Its not about what we think is correct for the most part in wikipedia. Its what's supported by sourced, reliable facts. And this is fully supported by a myraid of wikipedia policies, some of which I stated above. I'm not attempting to be difficult, that's simply what we do to keep the encyclopedia able to be sourced to its content. I'm willing to support you on your resepctive argument, and recently just completed a search for sources supporting your standpoint. I found none. And you've given me none. Save for your word, which simply does not cut it at wikipedia. Learning to source your allegations and standpoint on what belongs and does not belong in articles is a very essential part of this site, part of which holds it in line with Encyclopedia Briannica.

All you merely require to support your stacnce is a decent counter-rebuttal in the form of several sources which disprove my own.

And look at that. Another source: [3] -Zero^Talk 15:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

For crying out loud you really are a rampant fanboy of this game aren't you ? Why else would you go on about it this hard AND add articles about the characters from it ?

Facts:
- Ridge Racer games are arcade racers
- R: Racing Evolution is a sim racer
- Namco has not made a statement either way regarding the name of the game or whether it's part of the Ridge Racer series or not but clearly they could've called it "Ridge Racer Evolution" but didn't
- Except for two links, the links you provided were reviews of the game and don't count as true sources
- The two links you did provide with info from Namco only said that R: Racing Evolution is a different type of racing game and it was developed by the team who did the Ridge Racer and Moto GP series

Bottom line, you can't claim definitely that it is in fact part of the Ridge Racer series. As it stands some people say yes and others say no. What's in the article now is a fair compromise and should be satisfactory (unless you're a rampant fanboy). If a definitive statement from Namco can be provided then so be it. I'd imagine in your zeal you have searched Namco's website high and low and came up empty so considering the ambiguity please let this matter drop once and for all. 03:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

One other thing, don't go removing games which are definitely part of the Ridge Racer series from the list again in your ridiculous fanboyism. Rage Racer is definitely third in the series of Ridge Racer console games and Rave Racer says "Ridge Racer Project" in attract mode. Additionally tracks from both games are used in Ridge Racer PSP. 03:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That was uncalled for. Place yourself in my shoes. In wikipedia, that's simply how things are. We provide sources, and we follow them in the insertion of data concerning articles. Policy such as WP:CITE is in place for this type of thing, and assists in making sure each piece is information is able to be verified. As for your facts, do you have a source for those ethier...? I can't help but realize that the fact you engage in the avoidance of providing any to support your thesis. Is it conjecture, or what..? If it cannot be sourced, then by the resepctive policy is being held in violation. This is paticualrly prominent in the second section [4]: In general, even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite. If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject — you will not be around forever to answer questions. The main point is to help the reader and other editors.

The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say…" Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research.

The second section of WP:CK might also be of interest. See the second section in paticular [5]. Its not I'm a rampant fanboy, or that I assume you're incorrect. Its simply the fact that you state these claims and oddly don't provide any sources for said facts. And at wikipedia, we err on the side of caution, especially in light of the fact I have. Concerning your evaluation of sources, I'm sorry yo feel that way, Mr. Anon. But I don't base the veribiitly of my sources on if you accept them or not. I base them on thier standing in line for wikipedia policy, ans according to WP:V, I'm on track [6]. And that's why I've continued to revert you. The claims removed were unsourced and some of them were potentially dubious. We don't put unverifiable claims into the encyclopedia, only verifiable facts. According to policy (WP:RS, I don't require an official statement to support my claim. The websites provided were sufficent in this task alone. -Zero^Talk 02:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Zero has asked me for my input so here goes. From what I have read and gathered, R: Racing Evolution isn't really in the main Ridge Racer series, but Zero has shown a lot of sources stating otherwise. However, I am not familiar with the series (I've personally never played a Ridge Racer game), so I am not as "educated" on the series, so I may not be the one for final consensus. I generally agree with what A Man In Black has said earlier in this discussion. Thunderbrand 04:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reorganised the list of Ridge Racer games into an arcade section, a console section, and a mobile phone section (the latter currently only containing Ridge Racer 3D). As for Megaman Zero's claim that Rave Racer and Rage Racer aren't part of the main Ridge Racer series -- well, they are, according to MobyGames [7] and Altpop.com [8]. I have also moved R: Racing's info from the "interesting facts" section to below the bulleted list of console games. --Lumina83 06:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed they weren't. Simply a presumption on my part. Thanks for fixing my error, and I like the format. -Zero^Talk 07:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is good now. Thunderbrand 15:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea Lumina83 and you actually satisfied Megafan, great. By the way I don't like using third-hand info and don't source them because sometimes errors will get propagated. Reviews are just the opinion of whomever wrote the review and isn't a valid source of info.

I see you have yet again descended to violation of WP:NPA. As I've noted, I am not a fan of this game, and this unnecessary commentary pertaining to such ("Megafan") is extremely provocative and unwanted in the current context.

As for your opinion on gauging the quality of sources for wikipedia articles, I'm sorry but that's not debatable, nor up to your personal preferance. If you wish to bring such a situation to light, insert a proper query on a policy talkpage. -Zero^Talk 19:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Namco says that R: Racing Evolution is separate from the Ridge Racer series - http://gc.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=127&pg=2&comments=&preview=

The specific quote from Jeff Lujan, business director at Namco - "Separate from the Ridge Racer series, we hope to provide a new driving style in R: Racing Evolution. Much of this involves the human aspects to gameplay added through elements like the Interactive Driver AI System. "

Frankly this should've been obvious, a simulation racer which uses licensed cars, real world tracks and has a story mode certainly is NOT the same as a drift-heavy arcade racer with made up cars, set in fictional Ridge City (or Rave City) and no story. Hopefully this is the end of this controversy. 03:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Character articles

I have just created articles for Rena Hayami and Gina Cavalli. I'll begin working on the other lady a bit later. -Zero^Talk 16:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Boy! I don't know anything about this other lass. I attempted a brief google for information, and recieved nothing. I'm speculating there might not be to much to add to the current article at this current time. I'll just do some clean-up and give the article some time to grow in the case someone else does locate something about her. -Zero^Talk 15:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

E3

Can someone add that the reason there was unenthusiastic applause when he mentioned Ridge Racer was because the audience were most likely noobs who's first system was a PS2.

I'll get right on it. Or maybe not. I don't really care about games, games consoles or any of it, but having seen the video, you have to admit that man going 'Riiiiiiiiidge Racerrr!' is faintly ludicrous, to say the least. Although personally I find the fact that giant crabs are an integral part of Japanese history funnier. 86.0.232.60 19:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole "Riiiiidge Raaaaacer" thing probably deserves a mention. It's popping up quite a bit in Internet culture even now. Battle Ape 14:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Removed or altered several items in this article:

"*Almost all of the Ridge Racer games have been launch titles for a certain console in one way or another." (removed)

The only launch titles in the series were RR, RR5, RR DS, Ridge Racer(s) for the PSP and RR 6 for the XBox 360. Missing are Revolution, Rage Racer, Type 4, 64 - nearly half the games in the series. Going forward, RR 7 may be a launch title, and Ridge Racer(s) 2 for the PSP will definately not be. This still makes the count nearly half, definately 'not all'.

"*Ridge Racer Revolution uses the soundtrack from the arcade Ridge Racer 2, though the meat of the game itself is completely new." (modified)

"This leads to a constantly fast paced game that is accented highly by the soundtrack."

Removed, since the correlation between unrealisic powersliding and the soundtrack is tenuous, at best.

Also, are we sure that it was Reiko Nagase in the pre-Type 4 games, or is this just speculation?

Interesting thing I noticed

With the exception of RR64, when a Ridge Racer game is released for a new console, it's always a launch game or released just after the launch. Don't know if it's worth mentioning in the article though. --Mika1h (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

While somewhat true, especially recently, it's not completely accurate. Remember that the PlayStation had several Ridge Racer titles released during its life cycle, then there was R: Racing Evolution that was released well after launch for both Xbox and GameCube, and the upcoming Ridge Racer Unbounded will arrive on established consoles, too. More importantly, such a supposition is considered original thought, and thus isn't appropriate unless a published authority makes the same statement. But, as noted above, that statement isn't really supported by the facts. --McDoobAU93 16:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

While not all Ridge Racer games are launch games, all recent consoles have had an RR as a launch game. It has a reputation as launch series, with the mainline series, with the exception of RR2 for PSP, only appearing at launch. Since the creation of the series, only N64, GC, and the XBOX have not had RR launch games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohmifune (talk • contribs) 05:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sega Saturn didn't have a Ridge Racer game at launch, nor did Sega Dreamcast or Wii ... and I bought all three on their respective launch days. As stated before, this is all original thought that doesn't belong in the article unless a published source says it; for that matter, my statement just now is just as much original research, so I do try and practice what I preach. --McDoobAU93 14:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)