Anyone know if Grand Turismo will be ported for PC. I've yet to play
the playstation version, but the screen shots and number of cars looks
VERY interesting? For those that have played it.......
Is it an arcade game (boooooo), or a sim?
Are the physics realistic?
Are the tracks realistic, or "fantasy"?
Thanks all!
Yes, except no damage; the actual physics are the best I've played with in
any game. In my Supra I lost the rear end coming out of a ver fast turn
and in the replay I could see the suspension/wheel bouncing around.
Fantasy, although I really like some of the courses. Especially the
mini-autumnring.
If you like to watch replays of your races this is the best at it. In the
replay ou see the reflections of everything off the car.
With the amount of cars (I think 166) it's understandable there's no dash
or damage model. You would need a DVD to store all that information.
Jon B^D
The physics are good but there are no crashes to speak of, not like NFS.
Shame really could have been a really
good game if it had.
Paul
>> Anyone know if Grand Turismo will be ported for PC. I've yet to play
>> the playstation version, but the screen shots and number of cars looks
>> VERY interesting? For those that have played it.......
>> Is it an arcade game (boooooo), or a sim?
>Both (no damage though).
>> Are the physics realistic?
>Yes, except no damage; the actual physics are the best I've played with in
>any game. In my Supra I lost the rear end coming out of a ver fast turn
>and in the replay I could see the suspension/wheel bouncing around.
>> Are the tracks realistic, or "fantasy"?
>Fantasy, although I really like some of the courses. Especially the
>mini-autumnring.
>If you like to watch replays of your races this is the best at it. In the
>replay ou see the reflections of everything off the car.
>With the amount of cars (I think 166) it's understandable there's no dash
>or damage model. You would need a DVD to store all that information.
>Jon B^D
Randy
Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com
> Paul
It's an awesome game already. Who needs damage when the focus is racing?
Sure damage is a part of racing, but only a small part. Other than damage
this game is pot on to real life. Nobody can say that about any other game,
simply because we don't get to drive a Champ Car, NASCAR, or F1 car at any of
the circuits; let alone drive them at all.
When there's imaginary tracks nobody can say it doesn;t have a turn like that,
because it does. And with lots of real cars it makes it real racing. Not
some fancy crap. This game provides e***ment and challenge; what more could
you ask for out of a game? Well sure damage would be nice, but it wouldn't
make or break the game.
I'll rephrase what you said.
The physics are NEAR PERFECT but there are no crashes to speak of, not like
NFS.
Shame really could have been a PERFECT game if it had.
Jon B^D
Anyway, my short take (well, it was when I started writing):
Arcadish. As a "racing" sim, it is arcadish due to its complete lack of
collision damage, 6 car maximum, usually 2 lap race length, bumper car though
aggresive AI (or was it just me causing all the bumper car action?). Now,
this isn't to say it isn't incredibly fun, or realistic in other ways, but a
race that misses on some of the above elements isn't much of a sim of a real
race.
As to...
Some say very. I'll have to bow to the opinions of those more savvy, however
I'll point out a couple of things that haven't been mentioned:
I varied the camber and shock settings of my purchased "sport suspension". I
couldn't tell the difference between the stock shock setting (2/2) and the
most polar settings (f/r = 1/3 and 3/1). Maybe my own insensitive butt,
however I would have expected a noticeable difference. Ditto on the camber
settings, but that might be expected to be more subtle?
In its defense, switching from the stock tires on a Civic Si to racing
compound Soft front, hard rear, did result in a very satisfying shift from
understeer to strong oversteer on late braking. Though very controllable
oversteer. As Randy mentioned, maybe dialed up in effect for us tail-happy
Americans?
Where it really failed, and I haven't seen mentioned, is in the modeling of
the effects of hp/weight+drag. I have run the stock '94 Lude VTEC to 164 mph,
the new Lude SH to 162 mph (both should be about 140), the GSR to 157 (more
like 134), a stock(?) CRX Si to 153!! I believe a 205 hp Civic Si that was
lightened to 1779 lb would do better than the 13.9 sec 1/4mi I clocked.
[PS: yes I like Hondas :-)]
If they can't get that right, it raises doubts about the rest of the physics
modeling in my mind.
Fantasy. I do like the variety. And the Autumn Ring-mini reminds me of
auto-x'ing. The license tests are challenging. All the different cars to
drive a blast. I really appreciate a chance to run some of the cars I've
owned, or contemplated/dreamed of owning. A pleasant change from the pure
racers and outright ***s of most games/sims.
If this game gets a PC port, I'll certainly buy it. If they add in-cockpit
graphics, damage, and more american and European cars (*) it'll be that much
more amazing.
(*) = it only has the previous gen Corvette's, Z28, an old 427 vette, Vipers,
the Aston Martin DB7, some TVR's. Please add BMW's, VW's, Ferraris to race
against the NSX et al, Mustang, Contour SVX...
I agree it would have been perfect, I just felt it lacked the fun factor.
I`m all into simulating cars,etc its just a shame they
failed to simulate the crashes aswell. And like you say if it had them it
would be perfect. But unlike NFS you dont get that
classic moments when you come round a corner to see a car on its side or
roof.
I dunno, maybe I should have played Gran turismo for more than a few days,
I was just disappointed thats all.
Paul
>> The physics are good but there are no crashes to speak of, not like NFS.
>> Shame really could have been a really
>> good game if it had.
>> Paul
>Paul,
>It's an awesome game already. Who needs damage when the focus is racing?
>Sure damage is a part of racing, but only a small part. Other than damage
>this game is pot on to real life. Nobody can say that about any other
game,
>simply because we don't get to drive a Champ Car, NASCAR, or F1 car at any
of
>the circuits; let alone drive them at all.
>When there's imaginary tracks nobody can say it doesn;t have a turn like
that,
>because it does. And with lots of real cars it makes it real racing. Not
>some fancy crap. This game provides e***ment and challenge; what more
could
>you ask for out of a game? Well sure damage would be nice, but it wouldn't
>make or break the game.
>I'll rephrase what you said.
>The physics are NEAR PERFECT but there are no crashes to speak of, not like
>NFS.
>Shame really could have been a PERFECT game if it had.
>Jon B^D
I have a different take on this question than everyone else. The question is
not "are the tracks REAL" it is are they REALISTIC. To which I would answer
YES, they are REALISTIC. No lava, no weird physics, no amu***t parks, no big
jumps or loops, just racetracks that look like converted streets. I think we
may be giving the impression that it has arcade style tracks when what we mean
is that the tracks do not exist in real life.
I don't mean to offened anyone, but in my opinion NFSII is not a good race
game at all.
I use a Voodoo for good frame rates and nice scenery. But, the control of
the cars are terrible. The sounds truly are synthesized and not sampled. I
think a comparison of a a race game to NFSII indicates low expectations.
I own NFSII SE and although I played it for atleast 10 hrs of accumalted
time. I nolonger do.
I don't like the fake sound, and I don't like the physics. When I turn, my
whole screen seems
to shift to change views.
Again sorry to offened if so. Just my opinion, I think it is worth alot.
JeffS
> I dunno, maybe I should have played Gran turismo for more than a few days,
>I was just disappointed thats all.
>Paul
>>> The physics are good but there are no crashes to speak of, not like NFS.
>>> Shame really could have been a really
>>> good game if it had.
>>> Paul
>>Paul,
>>It's an awesome game already. Who needs damage when the focus is racing?
>>Sure damage is a part of racing, but only a small part. Other than damage
>>this game is pot on to real life. Nobody can say that about any other
>game,
>>simply because we don't get to drive a Champ Car, NASCAR, or F1 car at any
>of
>>the circuits; let alone drive them at all.
>>When there's imaginary tracks nobody can say it doesn;t have a turn like
>that,
>>because it does. And with lots of real cars it makes it real racing. Not
>>some fancy crap. This game provides e***ment and challenge; what more
>could
>>you ask for out of a game? Well sure damage would be nice, but it
wouldn't
>>make or break the game.
>>I'll rephrase what you said.
>>The physics are NEAR PERFECT but there are no crashes to speak of, not
like
>>NFS.
>>Shame really could have been a PERFECT game if it had.
>>Jon B^D
> I don't mean to offened anyone, but in my opinion NFSII is not a good race
> game at all.
> I use a Voodoo for good frame rates and nice scenery. But, the control of
> the cars are terrible. The sounds truly are synthesized and not sampled. I
> think a comparison of a a race game to NFSII indicates low expectations.
> I own NFSII SE and although I played it for atleast 10 hrs of accumalted
> time. I nolonger do.
> I don't like the fake sound, and I don't like the physics. When I turn, my
> whole screen seems
> to shift to change views.
> Again sorry to offened if so. Just my opinion, I think it is worth alot.
> JeffS
BOB
And no announcer! "Oh no! Watch that turn!" "Wow, what a rocket!!"
argh...I hate those damn games where you can't shut them up.
I agree the tracks are very realistic. Nice to play a racing title with no 20
degree off-camber turns, mile-long tunnels, amu***t parks, and
'bumpity-bump' bridges to drive over.
>>Fantasy
>I have a different take on this question than everyone else. The question is
>not "are the tracks REAL" it is are they REALISTIC. To which I would answer
>YES, they are REALISTIC. No lava, no weird physics, no amu***t parks, no big
>jumps or loops, just racetracks that look like converted streets. I think we
>may be giving the impression that it has arcade style tracks when what we mean
>is that the tracks do not exist in real life.
But is it going to get a PC port?
> >>> Are the tracks realistic, or "fantasy"?
> >>Fantasy
> >I have a different take on this question than everyone else. The question is
> >not "are the tracks REAL" it is are they REALISTIC. To which I would answer
> >YES, they are REALISTIC. No lava, no weird physics, no amu***t parks, no big
> >jumps or loops, just racetracks that look like converted streets. I think we
> >may be giving the impression that it has arcade style tracks when what we mean
> >is that the tracks do not exist in real life.
All I've read is that it is being looked into. I really enjoy it on the PSX,
but if they did a 3dfx PC port, I'd buy that too. It's that good.
Damn. Sure looks pretty, though I haven't driven it.
Jonny
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jonathan Hodgson | TTech Predator |
| than win by two laps | LSU Archery Club and Orchestra |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>But is it going to get a PC port?
>I asked this in my local Game shop, and one assistant said "definitely
>not".
