rec.autos.simulators

My review of the U.S. version of Sony's Gran Turismo sports car
simulation  is at Digital Sportspage:

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Note:  Even though this is a Playstation game, I recommend that PC sim
fans read this review.  You will be surprised (and jealous).

GREAT review Andy....I don't know if anyone is obsessed with replays
like I am. (I always watch my NFSIII replays), but this Replay Theater
mode is GREAT!  I wish I could save some of my Hot Pursuit mode
replays to see over and over again, I love Sony for including that
feature in GT.  I may have to pick up a whole separate memory card
just for GT!

Thanks for addressing the realism hit...that was a BIG concern of
mine...though truth do tell just for the sheer number of cars and mods
I would have picked this title up anyway.

I know that a PC port has been rumored but thanks to Sony I can play
this game NOW...well Wednesday.  :)

-------------------------
Digital Ages Online    
independent video games network
http://www.digital-ages.com

ICQ-2927081 - remove the TAKETHISOUT to reply
-------------------------

Great review, Randy!  You now have me officially salivating for this
title.

Keith

Randy Magruder wrote

Thanks Randy. I knew you would fall in love for this sweety.  But you forgot
to talk about the damage engine from what I read ?? (one of the few mishaps
of this cool game).

2 words :    PC PORT  !.!.!.!.!

This would be the only non-Papyrus racing simulator (hmm yes I called it
simulator) that I would be buying the day out.  It's 50 bucks into their
pocket.  I even plan to buy a PSX only for it (I normally rent it).  Just
add a***pit view (for the PC it would be possible), and better damage.
This is a top-hit sale be sure on the PC.   Wow I saw they altered the
racing physics for the U.S. version ?? Geeze

GPT for PC, GPLegends, NROS.  Wow that would be a heaven summer for me !!!

Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> Good race at the Brickyard, (-o-)
Excuse me for my English (I'm French speaking)

Yeah, Randy noted as much.  I don't think there was anything important he
missed an accounting of -- if you read his review, you'll have an
exceptionally clear sense of whether you'll like the game or not.  And
that's what matters.

Ricky Wayne Brown

Digital Sportspage <www.digitalsports.com>

Pete

No, I didn't.  The damage model is mentioned as missing in my review, and I
hypothesized that the manufacturers probably didn't want to see their
precious cars getting creamed.

Word :)

Well, my review discusses how to get around that :)

Randy

Its not as much meant to be inflammatory as to make PC owners aware of the
fact that Gran Turismo isn't just a great racing sim "for a console", but is
a great racing sim ..PERIOD.   Often no matter how much praise you heap on a
console title, it turns out that realism leaves something to be desired
compared to *** PC sims, and PC simmers know this and often
automatically tune out anyone who praises the realism in a console title.
And yes, when you see the replays and what your car is doing, I challenge
you to find a PC sim that beats it.  I am usually the first to point out
that realism is suffering in a console game -- in this case, it goes toe to
toe with the best the PC has to offer.

As Ricky pointed out, I mentioned those points.  I think the damage has to
do more with licensing than anything else, and I really think that damage
isn't meant to be a focus of this game.  Its the feeling of driving and
racing an *** sports car.  If damage is critical to your enjoyment of the
game, I do understand your feeling, but in my case, I'd just as soon not see
my beautiful red Dodge Viper in a crumpled heap <G>

Randy

Well, I have the imported original feedback controller that came out the
same time as Rally Cross did, and I think its losing its 'jolt' from use.
The new one felt stronger.  It basically just jumps around in your hand at
various strengths.  You'll feel it as you crest hills and the suspension
loads and unloads, and what's cool is you also get shuddering as you brake
very hard.  Going over curbs will give you a slight vibration, and banging a
wall gives the strongest vibration.  Remember, that this isn't true force
feedback (i.e. the sticks aren't affected).  It's just really a way to let
you have a little feedback of the surface your racing on and is a nice
enhancement.  I find that using the Mad Catz is more natural for driving,
but I'm getting really good at using the dual shock, and I go back and forth
between the two (though I got an e-mail from someone saying the Mad Catz
doesn't work with the game if you plug it in BEFORE you turn on the
Playstation!  I switched on the fly within the game and didn't have any
problem....

effects

I can't really say the surround effects stood out, but I didn't try hard to
boost up my rear volume.  The left-to-right effects were there, but they
weren't THAT strong.  Sound fidelity is fantastic though, and there is some
reverberation of the engine sound as well as some echo-like effects in some
of the cars.  My favorite sound is the Dodge Viper engine.  It's just so
smooth....

Enjoy the game!

Randy

Great review, again, Randy! What I find strange though is that you
(and about every other reviewer) rates GT's graphics as close to
perfect, higher than NFS3's in fact. Sure, the cars look
mindbogglingly good during instant replay. But racers are not about
watching instant replays (ok, actually I spend nearly as much time
doing this as I'm racing :) but in the long run that'll change), they
are about racing.

During the actual races, however, Gran Turismo just can't compete with
NFS3. It can't compete technically (there's slight polygon distortion,
some serious pixel problems especially in the backdrop images, and
more visible pop-up than in NFS3, the trees along the track look not
at all convincing, and finally there's nothing to compete with NFS3's
abundant light sourcing - GT's night races look embarrassingly close
to Motor Toon GP2's night races (ie. the 2nd track) which were cool
back then but that was two years ago). It can't compete in terms of
track design and roadside objects. I'm not sure if it would be
appropriate for a "real sim" to include donut shops with huge rotating
donuts or a giant moving Titanic-like ship and so on, but even if you
think away these objects GT's tracks still can't compete with the
visual richness of eg. Atlantica or the Mexican tracks. And since GT
doesn't try to mimic real-life race tracks like F1'97 there's no
reason why the designers shouldn't have included some really beautiful
places (apart from a lack of imagination, maybe :) ). They tried with
tunnels and bridges, but, again, these look nowhere as convincing as
in NFS3 (or even in Rage Racer).

You're mentioning some of this in your review, too, yet you're
concluding with a higher graphics score than for NFS3 which IMHO looks
far better.

BTW. I hope this doesn't look like I don't like GT's graphics. They
are crisp, look good, and hide the PSX's typical weaknesses well.
I just don't think they can compete with NFS3's. Am I all alone
with this opinion?

Karlheinz

--
      Karlheinz  Agsteiner         |  phone: *49/371 531 1667
 Institute  of Computer Systems    |  fax  : *49/371 531 1806

Chemnitz University of Technology  |  http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~kag

I would say that is feasible and possible, since at least two other
Sony games are already ported to PC, namely Twisted Metal 2 and
Jet Moto. Who starts to bug Sony? Constructively, of course.

Remember that there is ONE graphics score in the review, and I stated
that they really needed to be divided up into two.  The replay quality
lifts the graphics score above that of NFS3.    I tried to address
this in the review:

"While the courses are designed well and are pleasing to the eye, they
are certainly not as full of eye candy (static and dynamic) that we
see in arcade racers and in EA's Need for Speed series. Certainly
looking at the course from your in-car view or from behind the car
during gameplay will not inspire awe."

"...So the graphics rate well above average, probably an 88-92, but
clearly the in-game graphics are meant for frame rate, brightness and
clarity above all else. If you're looking at this game with the idea
of visiting*** locations and racing through them at high
speeds, you might be left a little flat."

serious pixel problems?!

I really haven't noticed pop-up in GT.  I'll take your word for it
that there might be some, but I really didn't notice it.

I understand your complaint, but I really think that GT is more about
the cars than the tracks.  The generous use of red/white racing curbs
and more technical style circuits is an indicator that this is first
and foremost a racing sim, not an open-road eyefest like NFS3.

Again, the graphics score is a composite of in-game and replay.

Randy

|
| Great review, again, Randy! What I find strange though is that you
| (and about every other reviewer) rates GT's graphics as close to
| perfect, higher than NFS3's in fact. Sure, the cars look
| mindbogglingly good during instant replay. But racers are not about
| watching instant replays (ok, actually I spend nearly as much time
| doing this as I'm racing :) but in the long run that'll change), they
| are about racing.
|
| During the actual races, however, Gran Turismo just can't compete with
| NFS3. It can't compete technically (there's slight polygon distortion,
| some serious pixel problems especially in the backdrop images, and
| more visible pop-up than in NFS3, the trees along the track look not
| at all convincing, and finally there's nothing to compete with NFS3's
| abundant light sourcing - GT's night races look embarrassingly close
| to Motor Toon GP2's night races (ie. the 2nd track) which were cool
| back then but that was two years ago). It can't compete in terms of
| track design and roadside objects. I'm not sure if it would be
| appropriate for a "real sim" to include donut shops with huge rotating
| donuts or a giant moving Titanic-like ship and so on, but even if you
| think away these objects GT's tracks still can't compete with the
| visual richness of eg. Atlantica or the Mexican tracks. And since GT
| doesn't try to mimic real-life race tracks like F1'97 there's no
| reason why the designers shouldn't have included some really beautiful
| places (apart from a lack of imagination, maybe :) ). They tried with
| tunnels and bridges, but, again, these look nowhere as convincing as
| in NFS3 (or even in Rage Racer).
|
| You're mentioning some of this in your review, too, yet you're
| concluding with a higher graphics score than for NFS3 which IMHO looks
| far better.
|
| BTW. I hope this doesn't look like I don't like GT's graphics. They
| are crisp, look good, and hide the PSX's typical weaknesses well.
| I just don't think they can compete with NFS3's. Am I all alone
| with this opinion?
|
| Karlheinz

Hi Karlheinz !

I've seen only some screen-shots of NFS3, so I can't really compare them.
But I'd like to comment about your minor quibbles with GT.

1.) You are right, there are some polygon distortions, but not that much.
     The 'missing' pixels between polygons is much worse and IMHO can't
     be ignored. NFS3 is graphically impressive - this can be seen from the
     screen-shots alone, and it's even more impressive if they have no
     'technical errors'.

2.) You stated that GT is about racing and you therefore don't really need
     the replays. O.K. thats a pure opinion-thing - I like it very much
because
     it's very entertaining and best of all you can save them, too.

3.)  GT is about realistic racing, so IMHO its tracks are nearly perfect -
they
      give a great feeling of realism. Of course they could've designed
some
      textures/sprites better but the memory of the PSX is rather limited
and
      the simulation aspects surely take their toll, too.
      Combined with great sounds and handling the tracks do for sports-car
      racing what F1 did for formula one racing, maybe even more.
      I don't want lush landscapes or cable cars on streets (like in
Porsche
      Challenge) in a closed circuit racing simulation. I want realistic
tracks,
      if they are *not* based on real tracks - even better (I'm no racing
groupie :)

4.)  Light-sourcing is great - when appropriate. In an arcade-racer nearly
      everything is possible and blue and red tinted screens because of
      police lights are great. But in a realistic racing simulation there
are
      other things which have to be taken care of first. Does NFS3 simulate
      dust on the cars (not essential - but adds to realism), do you have
to
      change the tires ? Add more horsepower to your car ?
      A night race is the only good example of light-sourcing for a
simulation
      that comes to my mind. But I think the courses in NFS3 are rather
      'abandoned' whereas the GT-night course is a well lit city course.
      And I must add that I was absolutely STUNNED when I saw pictures
      and the promo trailer of this game.

GT has its quibbles - no damage model and mostly japanese cars, as all
have noticed by now. But the good things by far outweight them.
NFS3 has its merits as all can see, but GT has them, too. It depends on
personal liking which you find better - for me it's realistic simulation
and I
instantly jumped into the shop to buy it (full price). But if NFS3 is
available
for a discount I won't hesitate either ;-)

--
Marcus Heuser
(Remove 'MakeMyDay' from address !)