Opinion: Historical Tracks is what F1 25 NEEDS to bring players back

F1 25 Hamilton Bearman.jpg
Image: Codemasters / EA Sports
The release of F1 25 is fast approaching with Codemasters and EA Sports pushing plenty of gameplay features. But our editor Luca is a firm believer in something that would truly reinvigorate interest in the series - historical tracks.

It is no secret that, like what it is replicating, the Formula One games have not been immune to the scrutiny of those consuming them. After fifteen years with Codemasters holding onto the official licence, the playerbase is slowly realising that the yearly release of these games is seemingly offering nothing of substance, and is now starting to respond with what matters.

Over the years, the games have seen many features added, the MyTeam career mode perhaps being the most successful. But for one positively received feature, there have been countless ones that have flopped, like F1 World, road-going Supercars, and podium celebration emotes. Even the Braking Point story mode, which I am not ashamed to admit I enjoyed, but I cannot deny that the majority of players did not.

Plus, it does not help when the developers openly admit to having no intention to fix certain game-breaking bugs.


Knowing that the majority of players are likely picking up the game for the current season's cars and drivers, it is rather mind-numbing trying to figure out what more they could add that the playerbase would be genuinely interested in. Many will claim "Classic Cars" but with them being removed after F1 2020, there may not have been enough of the playerbase driving them to be worth the expense of licensing those older cars.

But there is one feature that I have championed constantly over the years. If added to the F1 game, I am incredibly confident that it will bring some players back to the series.

Historical Tracks​

Codemasters' first foray into classical content was back in F1 2013, though it was not just cars but also some tracks. In addition to a range of cars from the 1980s and 1990s, players could drive on historical versions of Jerez, Brands Hatch, Imola, and finally, Estoril (before it was ruined). But the best part? That was not just with the classic cars, but also with the 2013 cars.

I have many fond memories of racing these venues in modern cars; the joy of driving these additional tracks never wore off on me. Alternative tracks were featured when classic content returned in F1 2017, albeit merely shorter versions of pre-existing Grand Prix venues, Silverstone, Circuit of the Americas, Sakhir (but not the outer layout), and the 2.25km configuration of Suzuka.

They were alright. I did particularly enjoy a multi-class classic car race around Suzuka Short, but it did not provide the same level of magic as F1 2013.


Of course, the one major feature indicated in the F1 25 reveal trailer is the ability to race tracks in reverse. I cannot speak for everyone, but to me, that seems like a move that truly reeks of desperation and seems more like a novelty. I cannot see that many people choosing to drive any of the tracks in reverse beyond the first time out of morbid curiousity.

Whilst classic cars may not have been used by the majority of the playerbase, there is precedent to the idea that tracks not on the current season schedule would get usage out of them. In F1 24, the Portimão circuit - despite not being on the schedule since 2021 - is still able to be raced on in all titles since it dropped off the calendar.

Paul Ricard has not hosted a race since 2022 but still features in F1 23. For the years that Shanghai was not on the schedule, it continued to be in all games before its return last year. Coupled with the MotoGP games by Milestone featuring past-season tracks (e.g., Donington, Estoril, Laguna Seca, and Indianapolis), I am certain that this is what Codemasters and EA Sports can do to win back some goodwill points with the players.

Which Tracks?​

Unlike F1 2013, which had actual historical configurations, there are more than a few suitable candidates from recent seasons that could be added to F1 25. Plus, they do not even need to be added immediately, as Codemasters did with F1 2021. The three new tracks for that season, Imola, Portimão, and Jeddah, were not in the game at launch, getting added in as free DLC at later dates.

Whilst that, of course, was due to the fact that the developers had to make the tracks and could not get them done in time for the game's release, it did have the unintended side effect of springing the F1 games back into the consciousness of the playerbase after launch. More people jumped back onto the game in those later dates to drive the new tracks, much like with any new bit of DLC that comes to a game.

Therefore, they could adopt that same practice by having all current season tracks at launch and adding bonus historical tracks intermittently over the remainder of the calendar year. Now for the tracks themselves! Two from relatively recent Codemasters F1 titles, two from near the beginning of their tenure with the F1 licence and two that have never featured in any of their games.


The first two are rather easy, Sepang and Hockenheim which last featured in F1 2017 and F1 2019 respectively. Despite being off the schedule for so long, both tracks are still very highly regarded by the F1 fanbase, so it only makes sense. Plus, it would not, in theory, be such a difficult implementation since both games in which they last appeared are on EGO Engine 4.0, the same game engine as F1 25. Unlike the next two, which were on games built on older versions of the EGO engine.

Next is Istanbul Park, which last featured in F1 2011, and Nürburgring GP, which appeared most recently in F1 2013, and no, not the Nordschleife, sorry pre-1976 F1 fans and all other avid sim racers. Both tracks were last-minute additions to the F1 calendar in 2020, and Istanbul even reappeared the following year when Suzuka dropped off the schedule, with many believing it would follow Imola and Portimão onto the F1 game as those two also filled the void for cancelled events.

When it comes to the last two, one already has the entire track model built, the Sakhir Outer Layout which takes under a minute to lap, plus it hosted quite the wild Grand Prix back in 2020. Finally, the other 2020-only venue is Mugello, where Lewis Hamilton won his 90th Grand Prix. With the track being owned by Ferrari, what more suitable addition to introduce with Hamilton now being part of the Scuderia and featuring prominently in the marketing for the game?

Mugello F1 2020.jpg

The high-speed Mugello circuit played host to the Tuscan Grand Prix just once, but the track was very well received by drivers and fans. Image: Getty Images / Red Bull Content Pool

Could It Happen?​

If Codemasters and EA Sports were really planning on surprising us, they would most likely have dropped this information already. But one thing that seems to be somewhat lost on the playerbase is the time and resources that would go into developing these tracks. Rewind back to before F1 2020 was released, and many players were convinced that all the new late additions for that season would be added to the game.

Leaving aside how little time they had to do that, of course, what was it that resulted in the schedule having to go through that restructuring anyway? The same reason as to why the workforce at Codemasters had to work remotely and thus making such a task even more difficult. But it has been a few years now, and I am absolutely certain that if they did this, a large portion of the playerbase would hugely appreciate it.

As much as many of us would love to see classic cars return, the core casual demographic that plays the F1 games is not that interested in them. So, if only current-season cars are getting used, what better way to offer something beyond that than to give players the ability to race these additional tracks?

What other circuits from past seasons would you like added to F1 25? Let us know in the comments below, and join the discussion in our F1 game series forum!
About author
RedLMR56
Biggest sim racing esports fan in the world.

Comments

Do you think that a company that has only one category, I don't even know if F2 applies here, has the same difficulty creating an AI as another producer that has 10, 20 different categories? Even F1 has a not-so-intelligent AI. If you're in a slipstream and turn left, it will try to close in and only overtake on the outside. This happens every time and for all drivers. It doesn't get ahead, there's an undercut, it doesn't change its strategy. It's not because the game follows the hierarchy of car performance and a questionable driver balance, it's spectacular. I played Grandprix Microprose and edited better races than F1 EA. The fact is that companies that produce something more like a simulator have challenges that F1 doesn't have. Physics doesn't evolve. Resources that add to the experience of a race aren't produced. VR is crap. Online is garbage. It's a bigger battle than CoD. Today, there are VR groups, championship mode groups, online groups. I don't know if this is relevant to other games, but the demands don't compare to EA's F1. Here, people just want a better experience from an F1 game. Some want an old car or a VR, but the vast majority want a more advanced game and not this polished and expensive crap. from 10 years ago. LU, ACevo, AMS2, Iracing for example have much greater demands than simply changing the paint and adding a driver fight mode, that's why they can't deliver a decent AI, when they have the chance we'll see.
I do think it's harder if you have 10x categories, but not 10x harder. In fact for sims where I have issues with AI, it's usually not good in one category, and bad in the other. It's more like in certain situations, whatever the content used, they fail at providing and immersive experience.

I am pretty sure F1 does not have perfect AI, I don't state that anywhere. But when I run a race I usually get a consistently fun and immersive experience. I cannot say that for many sims. ACC - go to Watkins Glen and the AI keep hitting the wall in the esses, go to Snetterton and the AI keeps flying off the sausage kerb in the chicane, or straight up miss the corner and rejoin playing bowling with other cars. And so on... And that is a sim that has a similar scope to F1 in terms of content.

At the end you say these modern sims have greater demands and thus they cannot deliver a decent AI - most do advertise themselves for offline racing so I don't see why they should get mitigating factors. ACE and LMU okay, early access titles, even though LMU has the best AI by far in hardcore sims. AMS2 doesn't get that benefit, it's a big fail for a sim that focuses on offline racing. Sims are in development for long times, even after release, yet most don't deliver or even improve AI racing - in most cases the quality on regresses after patches (ACC, R3E, AMS2). So no, I don't agree with this sentiment.

Whatever the physics, graphics, VR, content, etc. is, first and foremost these companies are selling video games. And arguably the only feature that can give a consistent baseline experience is single player racing, yet it doesn't get enough focus. MP is just incredibly inconsistent. F1 does it well enough in most releases I have experienced, so I give it credit for that. That is all.

Edit: This is important to add regarding AI racing. You are describing some AI "exploit" in the beginning. That is something that - for the sake of an immersive experience - the player can control and choose not to exploit. I don't like that they exist, but in my book it's not that much of a great deal. What I consider to be a big fail is when AI is racing other AI or just driving outside of battle and do immersion breaking things that the player has simply no control over.
 
Last edited:
I can't understand what immersive is from what you say, see if a car doesn't behave in curve A or B on circuit A or B, you having a base of almost 15 years, with only one category, and today with 24 tracks, is it the same level of difficulty as 20 categories and 50 tracks? Where is there no license to make the environment more immersive? The only parameters I see are LU and ACC, let's go in terms of game, they are 10 years ahead of EA's F1, LU has an AI that is even more interesting to me than F1. For those who have just started playing F1, it might seem like an interesting AI, but it isn't. I've been using the same strategy for years and I get the same results. The career mode is ridiculous. It's gone backwards. In the first editions, it was much more challenging to change teams, even though it would become boring later on. I don't know when I started playing Codemasters' F1 and later EA's, but what I'm saying is something that you can see from the sales and the negative expectations you read here. Now, I'm not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here to express what I think and to debate when they try to hide the truth. Today, EA's F1 has gotten worse. It's expensive. They add a fight mode that doesn't add anything to the experience and doesn't evolve technically.

F1 needs to be simplified.

Simple races, weekend races, championship and career modes. And change the engine so that the game has more technical possibilities and takes advantage of the hardware we have today.
 
I do think it's harder if you have 10x categories, but not 10x harder. In fact for sims where I have issues with AI, it's usually not good in one category, and bad in the other. It's more like in certain situations, whatever the content used, they fail at providing and immersive experience.

I am pretty sure F1 does not have perfect AI, I don't state that anywhere. But when I run a race I usually get a consistently fun and immersive experience. I cannot say that for many sims. ACC - go to Watkins Glen and the AI keep hitting the wall in the esses, go to Snetterton and the AI keeps flying off the sausage kerb in the chicane, or straight up miss the corner and rejoin playing bowling with other cars. And so on... And that is a sim that has a similar scope to F1 in terms of content.

At the end you say these modern sims have greater demands and thus they cannot deliver a decent AI - most do advertise themselves for offline racing so I don't see why they should get mitigating factors. ACE and LMU okay, early access titles, even though LMU has the best AI by far in hardcore sims. AMS2 doesn't get that benefit, it's a big fail for a sim that focuses on offline racing. Sims are in development for long times, even after release, yet most don't deliver or even improve AI racing - in most cases the quality on regresses after patches (ACC, R3E, AMS2). So no, I don't agree with this sentiment.

Whatever the physics, graphics, VR, content, etc. is, first and foremost these companies are selling video games. And arguably the only feature that can give a consistent baseline experience is single player racing, yet it doesn't get enough focus. MP is just incredibly inconsistent. F1 does it well enough in most releases I have experienced, so I give it credit for that. That is all.

Edit: This is important to add regarding AI racing. You are describing some AI "exploit" in the beginning. That is something that - for the sake of an immersive experience - the player can control and choose not to exploit. I don't like that they exist, but in my book it's not that much of a great deal. What I consider to be a big fail is when AI is racing other AI or just driving outside of battle and do immersion breaking things that the player has simply no control over.
I don't think you're up to date with AMS2.
Reiza is a studio that reached 100 employees with AMS2, AMS1 had around 35 employees, it's easy to make a criticism or comparison with a studio that may have more employees on vacation than the entire Reiza working. Another thing, Reiza, in addition to developing a new simulator, still has the challenge of developing the engine it used for AMS2. AMS2 is much further than Project Cars2 was with this engine. Lan Bell himself praised the Reiza team for the work done by such a small team. I guarantee that if Reiza developed F1, you wouldn't miss EA today. Almost the same can be said of Motorsport Games, because it has a much, much smaller team than EA/Codemasters, which is doing it with LU. The only advantage is that it is already very familiar with the RFctor2 engine. Even so, it has given a nice polish to the visuals and technical resources. Comparisons must be fair and seen broadly, not just one result.
 
I don't think you're up to date with AMS2.
Reiza is a studio that reached 100 employees with AMS2, AMS1 had around 35 employees, it's easy to make a criticism or comparison with a studio that may have more employees on vacation than the entire Reiza working. Another thing, Reiza, in addition to developing a new simulator, still has the challenge of developing the engine it used for AMS2. AMS2 is much further than Project Cars2 was with this engine. Lan Bell himself praised the Reiza team for the work done by such a small team. I guarantee that if Reiza developed F1, you wouldn't miss EA today. Almost the same can be said of Motorsport Games, because it has a much, much smaller team than EA/Codemasters, which is doing it with LU. The only advantage is that it is already very familiar with the RFctor2 engine. Even so, it has given a nice polish to the visuals and technical resources. Comparisons must be fair and seen broadly, not just one result.
As a consumer seeking quality offline racing, why should I care about team sizes, or engine challenges? Do I get these projects from smaller teams for much cheaper? No. AMS2 has been in development for a long time, yet still feels like early access, and cost me much more than the annual or bi-annual F1 game I get on sale. All that money for AI quality that despite being key points in updates, only stagnated or even regressed in certain scenarios. The studio head says the issues with AI is a price to pay for the many possibilities. But that is no excuse for me. I would gladly take 1/10th of the content and actually have fun, than look at the huge roster with nothing fun to actually play offline.

I don't care who develops F1. I am not even a fan of Codemasters or EA. EA has no credit in what makes the F1 good for single player. Both companies however did bad things to the F1 games in my opinion (microtransactions, F1 World, etc.). But that still doesn't change the fact that the pure AI racing in F1 (23) is one of the best experiences I can have today, and at the same time I wouldn't trust Kunos or Reiza to hypotethically make a better offline experience as things stand currently. Hopefully they convince me during the development of their active projects, trust me, I would be very happy if they did.
 
As a consumer seeking quality offline racing, why should I care about team sizes, or engine challenges? Do I get these projects from smaller teams for much cheaper? No. AMS2 has been in development for a long time, yet still feels like early access, and cost me much more than the annual or bi-annual F1 game I get on sale. All that money for AI quality that despite being key points in updates, only stagnated or even regressed in certain scenarios. The studio head says the issues with AI is a price to pay for the many possibilities. But that is no excuse for me. I would gladly take 1/10th of the content and actually have fun, than look at the huge roster with nothing fun to actually play offline.

I don't care who develops F1. I am not even a fan of Codemasters or EA. EA has no credit in what makes the F1 good for single player. Both companies however did bad things to the F1 games in my opinion (microtransactions, F1 World, etc.). But that still doesn't change the fact that the pure AI racing in F1 (23) is one of the best experiences I can have today, and at the same time I wouldn't trust Kunos or Reiza to hypotethically make a better offline experience as things stand currently. Hopefully they convince me during the development of their active projects, trust me, I would be very happy if they did.
This debate isn't going anywhere, I don't agree with any of the arguments, and at times I think he pretends not to understand or is too fanatical. Even to make demands you have to understand a context to have enough basis to not leave loopholes for excuses, but when someone comes here and tells me that they don't care about requirements A or B that if I paid I want it that way, well I think we have a big age difference here, there's no point in continuing a debate, the fact is that EA doesn't reformulate this F1 crap precisely because it's the same product for years, recycled for less demanding consumers, at least in some points, because less relevant things but in other studios fall into the category of absurd, agreeing or not, Reiza with AMS2, Kunos with ACompetizione, Motorsport Games made much more evolutions in their games than EA/Codemasters did in the last 14 years, if you think I'm wrong, install F1 2015 and 24 and make a complete comparison, since until the new generation came in, it was totally understandable not to have a significant evolution, but after 2023 it became an obligation, but The world is made up of people who think differently, with different demands and there is no problem with that, what bothers me sometimes is different weights when defending or criticizing something, because then we enter a field of being a fan, then a conversation does not evolve, it is just a waste of time, time will tell who is right
 
This debate isn't going anywhere, I don't agree with any of the arguments, and at times I think he pretends not to understand or is too fanatical. Even to make demands you have to understand a context to have enough basis to not leave loopholes for excuses, but when someone comes here and tells me that they don't care about requirements A or B that if I paid I want it that way, well I think we have a big age difference here, there's no point in continuing a debate, the fact is that EA doesn't reformulate this F1 crap precisely because it's the same product for years, recycled for less demanding consumers, at least in some points, because less relevant things but in other studios fall into the category of absurd, agreeing or not, Reiza with AMS2, Kunos with ACompetizione, Motorsport Games made much more evolutions in their games than EA/Codemasters did in the last 14 years, if you think I'm wrong, install F1 2015 and 24 and make a complete comparison, since until the new generation came in, it was totally understandable not to have a significant evolution, but after 2023 it became an obligation, but The world is made up of people who think differently, with different demands and there is no problem with that, what bothers me sometimes is different weights when defending or criticizing something, because then we enter a field of being a fan, then a conversation does not evolve, it is just a waste of time, time will tell who is right
I 100% agree with you that there is a lack of innovation and improvements in F1 games.

I 100% agree with you that LMU, ACC, AC, AMS2, you name it, are better driving simulations and made much bigger leaps in general.

But what bothers me about modern simracing is that offline racing quality is neglected mostly. I don't have the time for more serious online racing and after like 25 years playing racing games and good 15+ playing sims hotlapping is just boring.

However of a flawed company EA and Codemasters are, and how little meaningful improvements they make in their annual 80% recycled games, it is still one of the best offline experiences I can personally have. For somebody like me, who wants immersive offline races, that is very important, other simracers can have different priorities and that naturally makes F1 a weaker package. We all look at products subjectively.

I would be happy to leave F1 behind, but that would need other sims to catch up in single player experience. Currently that is only the case with 1, LMU. I would be more than happy if ACE and AMS2 made big improvements. And after those big improvements I would be more than happy if they got the license. But what matters now is the state of things now and not what could be.

These are not fanatics, loopholes, excuses, and I frankly don't understand how you disagree with everything I say. Products are a package, and when subjectively important things are not good, the package is not good for that person. Like we could have a perfect sim with all the cars, tracks, perfect AI, whatever, but if it ran 20 FPS on the most powerful PC I would simply not play it. Having bad AI in this conversation is a similarly important factor for me. It doesn't have to be for you and that is okay, and that doesn't mean the me or you are wrong or right.
 
I can't understand what immersive is from what you say, see if a car doesn't behave in curve A or B on circuit A or B, you having a base of almost 15 years, with only one category, and today with 24 tracks, is it the same level of difficulty as 20 categories and 50 tracks? Where is there no license to make the environment more immersive? The only parameters I see are LU and ACC, let's go in terms of game, they are 10 years ahead of EA's F1, LU has an AI that is even more interesting to me than F1. For those who have just started playing F1, it might seem like an interesting AI, but it isn't. I've been using the same strategy for years and I get the same results. The career mode is ridiculous. It's gone backwards. In the first editions, it was much more challenging to change teams, even though it would become boring later on. I don't know when I started playing Codemasters' F1 and later EA's, but what I'm saying is something that you can see from the sales and the negative expectations you read here. Now, I'm not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here to express what I think and to debate when they try to hide the truth. Today, EA's F1 has gotten worse. It's expensive. They add a fight mode that doesn't add anything to the experience and doesn't evolve technically.

F1 needs to be simplified.

Simple races, weekend races, championship and career modes. And change the engine so that the game has more technical possibilities and takes advantage of the hardware we have today.
I didn't see this comment before because it wasn't a direct reply to me. Last paragraph, 100% agree again. I wrote the same thing in the beginning of this comment section actually. I mostly do single races by the way, whatever race is in real life, with slower as well as faster cars. I would be afraid of a new engine though - Codemasters uses Unreal and that was not an improvement for WRC in my opinion.

I also agree that the AI of F1 might not be the most dynamic/interesting, but it works. LMU is very good, possibly better than F1 with AI, so we agree there.

You don't understand what is immersion for me. Simulation is important of course, but I don't mind some inaccuracies, especially when the force feedback is good enough. After all, it's enough to change tyres and a car's performance can be drastically different. Immersion for me is mainly to imitate real life racing. That means real cars, with real drivers and liveries, having realistic performance differences. And most importantly races that are similar to real life. It might be easier to give you examples what kills immersion for me. I wanted to play Daytona in AMS2 after the endurance DLC released, and whenever Prototypes went to lap the GT3s, half of the prototype field crashed or spun. That is 1 lapping that is supposed to happen every 15-20 minutes. Unrealistic, unimmersive. F1s in AMS2 - they are gaining on you with DRS and then stay behind, don't make a move. Unrealistic, unimmersive. ACC - try racing for example at Snetterton. Everytime we pass the chicane a quarter of the grid is off track because they cannot take the corner. Unrealistic, unimmersive. Compared to this F1 and LMU are much more reliable. I am a part of a race where I don't have to worry what is going to go wrong without me doing anything.

I think we agree in a lot of things actually... just give different importance to different features.
 

Article information

Author
Luca Munro
Article read time
6 min read
Views
5,384
Comments
47
Last update

With WRC leaving EA/Codemasters :Who will be blessed with the new WRC license?

  • Sabre

    Votes: 13 1.9%
  • KT Racing

    Votes: 61 8.8%
  • Milestone

    Votes: 87 12.5%
  • The Last Garage

    Votes: 11 1.6%
  • BeamNG

    Votes: 135 19.4%
  • iRacing

    Votes: 107 15.4%
  • Straight4 Studios

    Votes: 8 1.1%
  • Bugbear Entertainment

    Votes: 25 3.6%
  • Motorsport Games / Studio 397

    Votes: 61 8.8%
  • Kunos Simulazioni

    Votes: 98 14.1%
  • Reiza Studios

    Votes: 67 9.6%
  • Other (add in the comments below)

    Votes: 23 3.3%
Back
Top