Yo! Isn't today's F-Zero thread interesting? Although, today's subject will be a little different compared to usual!
A point of contention is in OP's grammatical phrasing in his opening post. He says:
>Why didn't they need to make the tracks 10 times wider?
in relation to the game having 30 electrifying racers to choose from! Hmm, such a wide array of choices... but, surely, Captain Falcon is the best one! Hoho, anyway...
Some would say, "Mr. Bart, this sentence makes sense!" And on paper, it would. However, the context is the issue.
The phrasing of
>why didn't they NEED to make the track...
versus...
>why DIDN'T they make the track...
provide two very different questions.
For the first phrasing, this comes across as in question of the original hardware's capabilities. Hmm, the Nintendo 64, eh? 64 bits of pure, high tech processing, 30 supersonic machines blitzing at fast speeds, all at a smooth, 60 frames per second... in 1998!? Hoho, I don't blame you for being bewildered, for this is quite the feat! But for F-Zero, we demand nothing short of excellence!
However, the post in question does not mention the N64 specifically, and thus makes it seem like the poster relies on English as a second language. An "E(nglish)-S(econd)-L(anguage)", if you would. There is a racer called "E.A.D.", but, I think it stands for something quite different...
Regardless, if the poster had stated...
>Why didn't they MAKE the track ten times wider?
...this would then be a natural lead to discuss the game's design philosophy for tracks and overall game design. But, that is not what happened, thus the conundrum on the topic itself.
My... English can be quite tricky for foreigners, don't you agree? Though, being an F-Zero Pilot is much harder, if you asked me! There are many entrants who share no common language, but are still plenty capable. After all, you need no words to race - only the finest of skills!
With all that said, that should clear things up! Until next time, bye!