The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Gran Turismo 4 (GT4)'.
right if you can just say what you want grand turismo 4 to be like (wish)
i will set an example:
i wsih that gran turismo 4 will have 500 great cars and 100 great tracks with spoliers and extra things to tune my cars up with.
now its your turn......
i will set an example:
i wsih that gran turismo 4 will have 500 great cars and 100 great tracks with spoliers and extra things to tune my cars up with.
now its your turn......
Page:
you must be lying! you just must be i can't understand why they would do it... i love slamming against thoose hard japanise walls at high speed!
if they take tht away i will be driving like theres speed cameras everywhere (slowly) nooooooo!
what will become of me?
oh well compensates for damage.
as long as its a good game i don't care.
if they take tht away i will be driving like theres speed cameras everywhere (slowly) nooooooo!
what will become of me?
oh well compensates for damage.
as long as its a good game i don't care.
Lou Role wrote:
> as they sort out the AI of the other drivers,
> which I think Polyphony are trying to do anyway. For me, improved AI
> is much more important than damage physics.
Yup, I'd agree with that. It looks like they're doing a good job, and preventing you from using other cars to get round those difficult corners.
I saw part of GT Prologue on Gamesville last night (well, 4am this morning) and they're introducing time penalties for collisions with the barriers and other cars, and also if you deliberately cut someone up. So no more slamming your mate into the barriers on 2-player mode.
Same rules apply to the computer racers, too.
They'll need to be careful with this, I think, otherwise they could ruin the game. But generally I think it's a good idea. Given the lack of any real damage system, it's a clever way of getting you to race 'properly' and avoid slamming around the tracks at full speed.
One thing I hope/wish they would include is a 'proper' 2-player race - i.e. you, a mate, and 4 AI cars.
> as they sort out the AI of the other drivers,
> which I think Polyphony are trying to do anyway. For me, improved AI
> is much more important than damage physics.
Yup, I'd agree with that. It looks like they're doing a good job, and preventing you from using other cars to get round those difficult corners.
I saw part of GT Prologue on Gamesville last night (well, 4am this morning) and they're introducing time penalties for collisions with the barriers and other cars, and also if you deliberately cut someone up. So no more slamming your mate into the barriers on 2-player mode.
Same rules apply to the computer racers, too.
They'll need to be careful with this, I think, otherwise they could ruin the game. But generally I think it's a good idea. Given the lack of any real damage system, it's a clever way of getting you to race 'properly' and avoid slamming around the tracks at full speed.
One thing I hope/wish they would include is a 'proper' 2-player race - i.e. you, a mate, and 4 AI cars.
Lou Role wrote:
> Driver 2 was a PS1 game though, and perhaps a little too ambitious as
> well. Have you seen the screenshots of Driver 3 yet? it looks
> amazing.
no i haven't seen the screenshots just presuming that it would be the same i guess oh well i will look at the shots.
> Driver 2 was a PS1 game though, and perhaps a little too ambitious as
> well. Have you seen the screenshots of Driver 3 yet? it looks
> amazing.
no i haven't seen the screenshots just presuming that it would be the same i guess oh well i will look at the shots.
Driver 2 was a PS1 game though, and perhaps a little too ambitious as well. Have you seen the screenshots of Driver 3 yet? it looks amazing.
Lou Role wrote:
> Lou Role wrote:
> Besides Driver 3 is out later this year, and that'll satisfy my motor
> mangling needs.
>
> :)
i got driver 2 and it wasn't that good graphics wise so probaly driver 3 is a no go for me but i might get destruction derby as that has plenty of damage hence the name
> Lou Role wrote:
> Besides Driver 3 is out later this year, and that'll satisfy my motor
> mangling needs.
>
> :)
i got driver 2 and it wasn't that good graphics wise so probaly driver 3 is a no go for me but i might get destruction derby as that has plenty of damage hence the name
> Lou Role wrote:
> And look at PGR, it has just over 100 cars which I reckon is more
> than enough, and it is by no means "just another racer".
> WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> PGR2 has to many cone challenges and too few races. I did own the
> original, but sold it due to boredom once I'd finished the racing.
> For that reason alone, I'm not convinced PGR even qualifies as a
> "racer" at all - more of a driving test!
Personally I enjoy PGR's mixture of Cone Challenges, Speed Camera challenges and it's racing, for me it offers a good variety. I guess GT and PGR are just two totally different types of racer, PGR concentrates on a more 'pick-up and play', arcade style of game, whereas GT is more of a simulation.
Don't get me wrong I do like the GT games and I own all of the GT games that have been released, but when I play something like PGR2 and then go back to GT, it all seems rather boring and 'on rails' as the other cars seem pretty 'mindless' and just follow the same line the whole time.
> Lou Role wrote:
> It's better than having none at all.
> WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> So a few broken lights and some dents makes a lot of difference for
> you, does it? You can still ping off walls etc. just like in GT. I
> see little difference myself.
What can I say, I just like to see some automobile destruction.
:)
> As I use the 'internal' view, I wouldn't see it anyway. When I had PGR, > I never even noticed the damage until a friend pointed it out to me!
This is actually a good point and something I never really thought about, as I always use the external view. And like yourself I didn't really notice the damage in PGR until after a few plays, but if you look at PGR2 the damage system has been improved a great deal.
> GT could probably incorporate a similar damage model (if you can call
> it that) to the one in PGR, but Yamauchi wants to incorporate a full
> damage system - which is what manufacturers seem to balk at.
But that's the thing, there only needs to be slight cosmetic damage and that would, in my opinion, keep the punters happy. I would be satisfied with that anyway.
But lets not be drawn into an argument over car damage in a computer game, because, does it really matter? With or without damage I will still buy GT4 so long as they sort out the AI of the other drivers, which I think Polyphony are trying to do anyway. For me, improved AI is much more important than damage physics.
Besides Driver 3 is out later this year, and that'll satisfy my motor mangling needs.
:)
> And look at PGR, it has just over 100 cars which I reckon is more
> than enough, and it is by no means "just another racer".
> WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> PGR2 has to many cone challenges and too few races. I did own the
> original, but sold it due to boredom once I'd finished the racing.
> For that reason alone, I'm not convinced PGR even qualifies as a
> "racer" at all - more of a driving test!
Personally I enjoy PGR's mixture of Cone Challenges, Speed Camera challenges and it's racing, for me it offers a good variety. I guess GT and PGR are just two totally different types of racer, PGR concentrates on a more 'pick-up and play', arcade style of game, whereas GT is more of a simulation.
Don't get me wrong I do like the GT games and I own all of the GT games that have been released, but when I play something like PGR2 and then go back to GT, it all seems rather boring and 'on rails' as the other cars seem pretty 'mindless' and just follow the same line the whole time.
> Lou Role wrote:
> It's better than having none at all.
> WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> So a few broken lights and some dents makes a lot of difference for
> you, does it? You can still ping off walls etc. just like in GT. I
> see little difference myself.
What can I say, I just like to see some automobile destruction.
:)
> As I use the 'internal' view, I wouldn't see it anyway. When I had PGR, > I never even noticed the damage until a friend pointed it out to me!
This is actually a good point and something I never really thought about, as I always use the external view. And like yourself I didn't really notice the damage in PGR until after a few plays, but if you look at PGR2 the damage system has been improved a great deal.
> GT could probably incorporate a similar damage model (if you can call
> it that) to the one in PGR, but Yamauchi wants to incorporate a full
> damage system - which is what manufacturers seem to balk at.
But that's the thing, there only needs to be slight cosmetic damage and that would, in my opinion, keep the punters happy. I would be satisfied with that anyway.
But lets not be drawn into an argument over car damage in a computer game, because, does it really matter? With or without damage I will still buy GT4 so long as they sort out the AI of the other drivers, which I think Polyphony are trying to do anyway. For me, improved AI is much more important than damage physics.
Besides Driver 3 is out later this year, and that'll satisfy my motor mangling needs.
:)
power-off wrote:
> Quality over Quantity, my friend.
>
> And seeing as GT had 1 Quality Track and 1 Quality Car, the original
> had neither
which GT had the "1 Quality Track and 1 Quality Car"?
gt3??
> Quality over Quantity, my friend.
>
> And seeing as GT had 1 Quality Track and 1 Quality Car, the original
> had neither
which GT had the "1 Quality Track and 1 Quality Car"?
gt3??
Quality over Quantity, my friend.
And seeing as GT had 1 Quality Track and 1 Quality Car, the original had neither
And seeing as GT had 1 Quality Track and 1 Quality Car, the original had neither
never thought of it in that way because i always use internal veiw and thats a very good point, i think they should get sunglasses for gt4 because theres that realistic shiny sun always in your face
Lou Role wrote:
> And look at PGR, it has just over 100 cars which I reckon is more
> than enough, and it is by no means "just another racer".
PGR has to many cone challenges and too few races. I did own the original, but sold it due to boredom once I'd finished the racing. For that reason alone, I'm not convinced PGR even qualifies as a "racer" at all - more of a driving test! I haven't even bothered with PGR2.
> It's better than having none at all.
So a few broken lights and some dents makes a lot of difference for you, does it? You can still ping off walls etc. just like in GT. I see little difference myself. As I use the 'internal' view, I wouldn't see it anyway. When I had PGR, I never even noticed the damage until a friend pointed it out to me!
GT could probably incorporate a similar damage model (if you can call it that) to the one in PGR, but Yamauchi wants to incorporate a full damage system - which is what manufacturers seem to balk at. As it is supposedly a "driving simulator", there's little to no point in including a half-assed damage model like that in PGR.
> And look at PGR, it has just over 100 cars which I reckon is more
> than enough, and it is by no means "just another racer".
PGR has to many cone challenges and too few races. I did own the original, but sold it due to boredom once I'd finished the racing. For that reason alone, I'm not convinced PGR even qualifies as a "racer" at all - more of a driving test! I haven't even bothered with PGR2.
> It's better than having none at all.
So a few broken lights and some dents makes a lot of difference for you, does it? You can still ping off walls etc. just like in GT. I see little difference myself. As I use the 'internal' view, I wouldn't see it anyway. When I had PGR, I never even noticed the damage until a friend pointed it out to me!
GT could probably incorporate a similar damage model (if you can call it that) to the one in PGR, but Yamauchi wants to incorporate a full damage system - which is what manufacturers seem to balk at. As it is supposedly a "driving simulator", there's little to no point in including a half-assed damage model like that in PGR.
Page: