Scott,
You are entitled to your opinion. If you enjoy GP4 then that's all that
matters.
About your reasons, the only one that makes a difference is number two.
Number One, I'm thinking, must have been a joke (in fact, is your entire
post I joke, I'm wondering). How the cars look is incidental to whether the
game is a simulator or not. Replays mean almost nothing, IMHO.
My reasons for thinking GP4 is perhaps one of the worst F1 games, are as
follows,
1. Controller issues. Plain stupid. The entire menu system is absolutely
the weirdest I've ever seen. But still, the same, year after year.
2. System's hog.
3. Too easy. The best I've gotten on F1 2002 so far at Nurburgring is a
142.536, and that's after 200 laps (no aids). On Ace after two laps with
GP4 I was already at 128.xxx.
4. Sense of Speed. Going 180 mph is like walking through my living room.
GP4 is not an F1 simulator-- it's something else. I just think it is a very
bad game.
Alanb
> I personally think GP4 is a great game. It's no F1-2002, but F1-2002 is no
GP4 either.
> Reasons why I like it:
> 1. I'm a Crammond fan. And I have been, since GP1.
> 2. The AI rock.
> 3. Unlike F1-2002, the cars and the replays look pretty delicious.
> 4. Plenty of detail.
> Reasons why I don't like it:
> 1. Sometimes feels like there's too much grip.
> 2. Occasionally sluggish.
> 3. I don't have a third reason.
> Basically, it's a good game once you get into it after a while. And get
used to it.
> > > I think you need a more up-to-date graphics accelerator. The GeForce3
> > > architecture was laid-down in early 2001, and doesn't have the
fill-rate
> > of
> > > the current cards such as the GF4 Ti4600, or even Radeon 8500.
> > I'm not a 3D card guru, but virtually all I've read recently when it
comes
> > to GF3->GF4 it all reads "GF3 is more than ample, GF4 if you need to
have
> > the latest, otherwise skip the generation cause this ain't no quantum
leap".
> > That's not to say they've been right, of course. Nor that GP4 isn't the
game
> > to be the exception from the rule.
> > > I've got two systems, one equipped with a GF3 Ti500, and the other
with a
> > > GF4 Ti4600. And there's a noticable difference. With the GF4, I can
run
> > GP4
> > > at 1280x1024 maxed-out detail & effects at 35 fps, with PO at around
100%.
> > > And it looks superb. The GF3 Ti500 struggles to get anywhere near this
> > level
> > > of performance. Both systems are powered by Athlon XPs.
> > The same MHz Athlon XPs? Either way, I run other games that look a whole
lot
> > better than GP4 (heck, T2, a year old game, looks a whole lot better) at
2-3
> > times the FPS in GP4.
> > > And I think its' right to target a new game at the current top
hardware,
> > as
> > > in a year or so, the game will be well estabished with patches &
car-sets
> > > etc, and that hardware will by then have become entry-level.
> > I wouldn't have a problem with that if GP4 looked better than any other
3D
> > engine out there. It doesn't. It ain't even close. If someone had told
me it
> > was based on a slightly modified Quake II engine I wouldn't have doubted
it
> > if I hadn't already known different.
> > If somebody asked me if they should buy GP4, my answer would come in a
> > second and be "if you already have GP3 and don't plan on installing XP
> > anytime soon, NO!".
> > --
> > Frode
