Holy crap! Check out these new screens of Gran Turismo 4!

http://forum.granturismo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78431&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 Is that for real!?!?!?!?!?! -- Best regards, Chad Sparks [email hidden]

http://forum.granturismo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78431&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 Is that for real!?!?!?!?!?! -- Best regards, Chad Sparks

Wow.. the consoles have won. It's a sad day when the only PC game I'm looking forward to is CMR3, which seems to be a console port to the PC, terribly outdated with some of the most unbelievable phsyics I've seen in a long time. Seems like a lot of the recently good games have been out for console exclusively, or at least for a year before a PC version is even considered. Sure that has nothign to do with racing simulations, but it seems like that's a dying genre anyways. Definately a niche market. I can't picture any company coming along to do something with the scope of Gran Turismo strictly for the PC with as much effort spent of phsyics. Seems like the LFS guys would like to see that happen, but them alone can't do it. Whatever, I'm rambling. Anyways, I was playing Gran Turismo 3 A-Spec at my friends house just this week. It's a game that you can pop in, and everyone can get into it. That's what console games are all about. But wow.. does it look beautiful. I'd STILL say it has the most realistic graphics. I can't pin down why... maybe the textures and the lighting?? It's like, everything was made to look REAL. Take the car models from GTR2002, they're definately more detailed. The skins are higher resolution, etc. But a replay of the GT3spec viper is way more likely to be a television broadcast of the real thing in my opinion. I just don't know why though. Maybe because everything is so CLEAN or, artifically dirty in video games now.. or lighting isn't done right. I have no clue.. Mike http://mikebeauchamp.com "shpankey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ymHsa.10914$[email hidden]... >http://forum.granturismo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78431&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Is that for real!?!?!?!?!?! > > -- > > > Best regards, > > Chad Sparks > [email hidden] > >

In article <ymHsa.10914$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (shpankey) wrote: > Is that for real!?!?!?!?!?! It'd better *not* be or I may finally be forced to buy a console! Don't want a console... not never, *ever* <pout>. Ok, maybe if GPL2 was console only ;o) Andrew McP

shpankey wrote: > http://forum.granturismo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78431&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 > > Is that for real!?!?!?!?!?! > It's pretty pathetic for their competitors when it's damn hard to distinguish between which shots are from the title, and ones of actual cars. In fact, there's a few that I'm still not sure of. :) Major props to 'em, because they really do deserve every penny they earn from it. Papy, EA, eat your heart out! *goes off to drool some more* -Will

"shpankey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ymHsa.10914$[email hidden]... >http://forum.granturismo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78431&perpage=40&pag enumber=1 > > Is that for real!?!?!?!?!?! > Well I would have thought the R34 GTR would be well ahead of the 350z on the track, but who knows. They are damn nice shots though - give it the physics and AI of GTR2002 and they might have a winner :) iksteh (back to sliding the 996 around indy)

Mike Beauchamp wrote: > Wow.. the consoles have won. It's a sad day when the only PC game I'm > looking forward to is CMR3, which seems to be a console port to the PC, > terribly outdated with some of the most unbelievable phsyics I've seen in a > long time. GT3 was really well engineered. I can't remember if it has ever lagged for me in framerates. I guess that when PS3 will be released in a couple of years we'll see a Gran Turismo with more advanced physics!

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Seems like a lot of the recently good games have been out for console > exclusively, or at least for a year before a PC version is even considered. > Sure that has nothign to do with racing simulations, but it seems like > that's a dying genre anyways. Definately a niche market. I can't picture any > company coming along to do something with the scope of Gran Turismo strictly > for the PC with as much effort spent of phsyics. Seems like the LFS guys > would like to see that happen, but them alone can't do it. Whatever, I'm > rambling.

To license all the cars and model them all you'll need a vast amount of people and money... The console market got the money... :\ And the hardware is cheaper than a PC... And it works out of the box. The concept is amazing when you think of it!

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Anyways, I was playing Gran Turismo 3 A-Spec at my friends house just this > week. It's a game that you can pop in, and everyone can get into it. That's > what console games are all about. But wow.. does it look beautiful. I'd > STILL say it has the most realistic graphics. I can't pin down why... maybe > the textures and the lighting?? > It's like, everything was made to look REAL. Take the car models from > GTR2002, they're definately more detailed. The skins are higher resolution, > etc. But a replay of the GT3spec viper is way more likely to be a television > broadcast of the real thing in my opinion. I just don't know why though. > Maybe because everything is so CLEAN or, artifically dirty in video games > now.. or lighting isn't done right. I have no clue..

I've also thought about how it could look so realistic. There's something about how the sun reflects in the tarmac, but not in the markings in the road. (Check the ground on the super speedway course!) The environmental mapping of the cars varies with the environment too. It's truly amazing indeed! There's also some kind of aliasing(?) and depth blurring in the replays i think. Add to that the thermal effects on the air which is shown on e.g. the Laguna Seca course. Due to its eye-candy I just can't stop playing the game. The physics are realistic enough for me and I don't think I'll ever regret that I bought a PS2 due to GT3 only! Who wants to buy an X-box when GT3 exists??? -- /S

"Stefan Larsson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b8vsa0$4ef$[email hidden]... > I've also thought about how it could look so realistic. My thought is they are car shots, not in game shots.

My thought is they are car shots, not in game shots. What I mean is prerendered car selection screens, not in game real time shots. PS2 doesn't have the HP (IMO) to pull these screens off "in game". Certainly not with many players. We'll see though. "Stefan Larsson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b8vsa0$4ef$[email hidden]... > I've also thought about how it could look so realistic.

GT4 will also have near-perfect online play. "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "shpankey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ymHsa.10914$[email hidden]... > > >http://forum.granturismo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78431&perpage=40&pag

Quoted text (15 lines)

> enumber=1 > > > > Is that for real!?!?!?!?!?! > > > > Well I would have thought the R34 GTR would be well > ahead of the 350z on the track, but who knows. > > They are damn nice shots though - give it the physics and > AI of GTR2002 and they might have a winner :) > > iksteh > (back to sliding the 996 around indy) > >

"Steve Smith" wrote... > GT4 will also have near-perfect online play. For how many players? Jan. =---

"shpankey" wrote... > <snip> > Is that for real!?!?!?!?!?! That's just about photo realistic... got to admit I'm amazed. Jan. =---

On Sat, 03 May 2003 04:14:22 GMT, "shpankey" <[email hidden]> wrote: >http://forum.granturismo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78431&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 > >Is that for real!?!?!?!?!?! Nice renders. Jason

"Stefan Larsson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b8vsa0$4ef$[email hidden]... > Mike Beauchamp wrote: > >Who wants to buy an X-box when GT3 exists??? Well, without ANY AI whatsoever (hot lapping bots that run you off the road), only 6 cars on the track, and unrealistic anti-lock brakes on all the cars I was bored and done with GT3 in less than a month and ended up selling my PS2 and buying an Xbox (mainly for this and the superior graphics and sound of the Xbox). Based on what I've read, Pro Race Driver looks to be a better RACING experience with far more tracks and a nice size field of cars. GT3 is simply a hot lapping game until they deliver at least 12 other cars and some intelligent RACING AI. I do admit the Xbox isn't the racing console it could be without a proper FF wheel, but it has great potential with PGR2 which could be the GT3/4 killer IF it has good online play and they finally get a clue and produce a FF wheel. -- Joe M.

"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 03 May 2003 04:14:22 GMT, "shpankey" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >http://forum.granturismo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78431&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 > > > >Is that for real!?!?!?!?!?! > > Nice renders. > Agreed. There is NO way the PS2 does real-time in-game graphics with that detail, lighting and AA. Did they unlock the magic GF4 3D chip that's been inactive for 3 years? :) -- Joe M.

>"Mike Beauchamp" <[email hidden]> wrote > Wow.. the consoles have won Graphics smalphiscs, WHO CARES!! The Gran Turismo series doesn't even equal the quality in physics and game engine complexities of NASCAR RACING 3. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://ymenard.cjb.net/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

>"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote > GT4 will also have near-perfect online play. So, it will have a 43 human multiplayer experience that's almost warp-free? A server/client system like Papy? Track accuracy? Ranking? Organised output file system for leagues? User-painted cars? Anti-cheat systems? -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://ymenard.cjb.net/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

RAM cheats? driving aids that allow for completely unrealistic sets that get great tyre wear and can allow quicker speeds than is possible without? wreckers? as its being designed for online play id hazzard a guess that there will be a league system, rankings etc. warp free? the PS2s online capability is pretty much DSL or CABLE only, so you wont get the 56k warpers like you do with n2003 (heck, im one of em!) pez "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YxSsa.811$[email hidden]... > >"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote > > GT4 will also have near-perfect online play. > > > So, it will have a 43 human multiplayer experience that's almostwarp-free?

Quoted text (17 lines)

> A server/client system like Papy? > > > Track accuracy? > Ranking? > Organised output file system for leagues? > User-painted cars? > Anti-cheat systems? > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- http://ymenard.cjb.net/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > >

In article <jZIsa.18232$h%[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Anyways, I was playing Gran Turismo 3 A-Spec at my friends house just this > week. It's a game that you can pop in, and everyone can get into it. That's > what console games are all about. But wow.. does it look beautiful. I'd > STILL say it has the most realistic graphics. I can't pin down why... maybe > the textures and the lighting?? > > It's like, everything was made to look REAL. Take the car models from > GTR2002, they're definately more detailed. The skins are higher resolution, > etc. But a replay of the GT3spec viper is way more likely to be a television > broadcast of the real thing in my opinion. I just don't know why though. > Maybe because everything is so CLEAN or, artifically dirty in video games > now.. or lighting isn't done right. I have no clue.. >

I haven't been able to put my finger on it either but you are right -- the graphics in GT3 are amazing. The main reason I play the game is to watch the replays. The car models are dead on accurate, the camera views are realistic (for the most part,) the lighting and textures are first rate, and the frame rate is excellent. -- __________________________ Todd Walker http://twalker.d2g.com __________________________

ymenard wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>"Mike Beauchamp" <[email hidden]> wrote >>Wow.. the consoles have won > > Graphics smalphiscs, WHO CARES!! > > The Gran Turismo series doesn't even equal the quality in physics and game > engine complexities of NASCAR RACING 3.

Well, in GT3 I get the opportunity to turn right once in a while for a change... ;) -- /S

K e v i n � wrote: > My thought is they are car shots, not in game shots. > > What I mean is prerendered car selection screens, not in game real time > shots. > PS2 doesn't have the HP (IMO) to pull these screens off "in game". > Certainly not with many players. We'll see though. The intro of GT3 doesn't differ much from the real in-game quality... -- /S

Joe M. wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> "Stefan Larsson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:b8vsa0$4ef$[email hidden]... > >>Mike Beauchamp wrote: >> >>Who wants to buy an X-box when GT3 exists??? > > > Well, without ANY AI whatsoever (hot lapping bots that run you off the > road), only 6 cars on the track, and unrealistic anti-lock brakes on all the > cars I was bored and done with GT3 in less than a month and ended up selling > my PS2 and buying an Xbox (mainly for this and the superior graphics and > sound of the Xbox). Based on what I've read, Pro Race Driver looks to be a > better RACING experience with far more tracks and a nice size field of cars. > GT3 is simply a hot lapping game until they deliver at least 12 other cars > and some intelligent RACING AI.

I can live with that since the production of the Gran Turismo series is so magnificent. There are lots and lots of cars and competitions. It lasts for over a year. The AI is not the best I've seen, and I look forward to be able to race in GT4 against my friends since no AI can beat real human competition. I'd rather have a well designed game with decent physics than a game with very accurate physics and fantastic AI but that looks like shit and has no framerate whatsoever... If a racing game is going to have good physics the designers must not forget the design of the game -- that little extra that makes you stick with that very game in favour of any others, even if they are technically more superior. > I do admit the Xbox isn't the racing console it could be without a proper FF > wheel, but it has great potential with PGR2 which could be the GT3/4 killer > IF it has good online play and they finally get a clue and produce a FF > wheel. Yeah, what's the point in having the most powerful console when there's nothing but crap to run? If the PC wouldn't have any good games I'd rather play games that are entertaining on my old Amiga or C64. -- /S

No, it's a console (duh!). Worse, Sony has hitched their wagon to a 56K dial-up horse. It will work swell with you and a couple of drinkin' buddies. But it won't be as good as N2003...just as N2003 isn't as driving a real race car. Life is scaleable - ain't it grand? "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YxSsa.811$[email hidden]... > >"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote > > GT4 will also have near-perfect online play. > > > So, it will have a 43 human multiplayer experience that's almostwarp-free?

Quoted text (17 lines)

> A server/client system like Papy? > > > Track accuracy? > Ranking? > Organised output file system for leagues? > User-painted cars? > Anti-cheat systems? > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- http://ymenard.cjb.net/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > >

Sony is well aware of the cheating prob with consoles...particularly THEIR console. It's not in the Japanese culture to cheat (much), so they were completely blindsided by the amt. of cheating that swamped their first online forays. MS has just abt. pulled even in the multiplayer wars (despite being buried in the hardware & shrinkwrap wars), primarily because they did a better job of anticipating cheating. But Sony is learning fast, and is feverishly writing anti-cheating Netcode that will be implemented in GT4. How do I know all this stuff? 'Cuz I spent a lotta time with Sony's game wonks a coupla months ago when I was writing "Car Games for Car Guys" for Motor Trend (when I was bowled over by their first GT4 screenies). Maybe Sony lied to me...but I don't think so. "Alex 'pez' Porazinski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b90uu6$rd7$[email hidden]... > RAM cheats? driving aids that allow for completely unrealistic sets thatget > great tyre wear and can allow quicker speeds than is possible without? > wreckers? > > as its being designed for online play id hazzard a guess that there willbe

Quoted text (34 lines)

> a league system, rankings etc. > > warp free? the PS2s online capability is pretty much DSL or CABLE only, so > you wont get the 56k warpers like you do with n2003 (heck, im one of em!) > > pez > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:YxSsa.811$[email hidden]... > > >"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > GT4 will also have near-perfect online play. > > > > > > So, it will have a 43 human multiplayer experience that's almost > warp-free? > > A server/client system like Papy? > > > > > > Track accuracy? > > Ranking? > > Organised output file system for leagues? > > User-painted cars? > > Anti-cheat systems? > > > > > > -- > > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > > -- http://ymenard.cjb.net/ > > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez > > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > > > > >

Steve, Anywhere on the 'net' that I can read your "Car Games for Car Guys" article? "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:zP6ta.8909$[email hidden]... > Sony is well aware of the cheating prob with consoles...particularly THEIR > console. It's not in the Japanese culture to cheat (much), so they were > completely blindsided by the amt. of cheating that swamped their first > online forays. MS has just abt. pulled even in the multiplayer wars > (despite being buried in the hardware & shrinkwrap wars), primarilybecause > they did a better job of anticipating cheating. But Sony is learningfast, > and is feverishly writing anti-cheating Netcode that will be implementedin

Quoted text (17 lines)

> GT4. How do I know all this stuff? 'Cuz I spent a lotta time with Sony's > game wonks a coupla months ago when I was writing "Car Games for Car Guys" > for Motor Trend (when I was bowled over by their first GT4 screenies). > Maybe Sony lied to me...but I don't think so. > > "Alex 'pez' Porazinski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:b90uu6$rd7$[email hidden]... > > RAM cheats? driving aids that allow for completely unrealistic sets that > get > > great tyre wear and can allow quicker speeds than is possible without? > > wreckers? > > > > as its being designed for online play id hazzard a guess that there will > be > > a league system, rankings etc. > > > > warp free? the PS2s online capability is pretty much DSL or CABLE only,

so > > you wont get the 56k warpers like you do with n2003 (heck, im one ofem!)

Quoted text (32 lines)

> > > > pez > > > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:YxSsa.811$[email hidden]... > > > >"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > > GT4 will also have near-perfect online play. > > > > > > > > > So, it will have a 43 human multiplayer experience that's almost > > warp-free? > > > A server/client system like Papy? > > > > > > > > > Track accuracy? > > > Ranking? > > > Organised output file system for leagues? > > > User-painted cars? > > > Anti-cheat systems? > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > > > -- http://ymenard.cjb.net/ > > > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez > > > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > > > > > > > > > > >

>"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote > It will work swell with you and a couple of drinkin' buddies. Well, that makes more sense then the people screaming "PC GAMING IS DEAD!!!!!!!!1111111111111111" -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://ymenard.cjb.net/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

"Stefan Larsson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b92i6e$48$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Joe M. wrote: > > > "Stefan Larsson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:b8vsa0$4ef$[email hidden]... > > > >>Mike Beauchamp wrote: > >> > >>Who wants to buy an X-box when GT3 exists??? > > > > > > Well, without ANY AI whatsoever (hot lapping bots that run you off the > > road), only 6 cars on the track, and unrealistic anti-lock brakes on all

the > > cars I was bored and done with GT3 in less than a month and ended upselling > > my PS2 and buying an Xbox (mainly for this and the superior graphics and > > sound of the Xbox). Based on what I've read, Pro Race Driver looks tobe a > > better RACING experience with far more tracks and a nice size field ofcars. > > GT3 is simply a hot lapping game until they deliver at least 12 othercars

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > and some intelligent RACING AI. > > I can live with that since the production of the Gran Turismo series is > so magnificent. There are lots and lots of cars and competitions. It > lasts for over a year. The AI is not the best I've seen, and I look > forward to be able to race in GT4 against my friends since no AI can > beat real human competition. I'd rather have a well designed game with > decent physics than a game with very accurate physics and fantastic AI > but that looks like shit and has no framerate whatsoever... If a racing > game is going to have good physics the designers must not forget the > design of the game -- that little extra that makes you stick with that > very game in favour of any others, even if they are technically more > superior. >

Good AI and good graphics are not mutually exclusive and until a console does superior online racing than good AI is critical to a RACING game. GTR 2002 is a fine example of the best of both worlds. No reason to ever dabble with the MISSING AI in GT3 and only 6 cars of competition when I can run against 30+ cars in GTR2002 and enjoy the finest sports car RACING available. The issue is driving vs. racing; GT3 is not racing. BTW, GT3 only keeps you busy for a year if you find the AI competent and fun which I did not. The goal in GT3 is to race past the AI quickly before they drive you off the road. That's not racing, that's jousting. :) > > I do admit the Xbox isn't the racing console it could be without aproper FF > > wheel, but it has great potential with PGR2 which could be the GT3/4killer

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > IF it has good online play and they finally get a clue and produce a FF > > wheel. > > Yeah, what's the point in having the most powerful console when there's > nothing but crap to run? If the PC wouldn't have any good games I'd > rather play games that are entertaining on my old Amiga or C64. >

This is a fanboy argument or just completely ignorant. If you enjoy sports then the Xbox is supreme (best graphics and sound of all consoles and best selection of sports games). If you enjoy fighting games the Xbox is excellent (again, no less selection than the PS2 and better graphics and sound). It also has a fine selection of shooters with Ghost Recon as the finest example on any console (with Socom an inferior imitation). While the Xbox lacks GT3 it still has a strong stable of racing with Pro Race driver, PGR, Rallisport Challenge, MotoGP, CMR3, Nascar Thunder, and SegaGT. Let's not regress to "my console is bigger than your console", they're all good and some are simply better for your particular tastes. There's no killer app on the PS2 for someone like me (I'm 35 years old and not interested in the mindless nonsense in GTA games) so it was an easy choice to swap it for an Xbox since I appreciate the progress scan on most games and Dolby Digital sound and most great games are available on all 3 consoles. Quite frankly, the Game Cube leads in quality over quantity with AAA titles like Zelda, Metroid and Super Mario Sunshine. Of course I bought the GC for my son *cough* because it's a kiddie console. :) -- Joe M.

Consoles can now be played on HDTVs (there's a better PS2 in the works--call it the PS2-1/2--which will support 1080p), which is the equivalent of abt. 1020x768...on a 30-inch (or larger) screen. "ThermosBoy (TM)" <.@.> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > people still play games at tv resolution? Gah. :)

I'll query MT and ask if they mind if I post it. "Jay J" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:H39ta.201780$[email hidden]... > Steve, > > Anywhere on the 'net' that I can read your "Car Games for Car Guys"article? > > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:zP6ta.8909$[email hidden]... > > Sony is well aware of the cheating prob with consoles...particularlyTHEIR

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > console. It's not in the Japanese culture to cheat (much), so they were > > completely blindsided by the amt. of cheating that swamped their first > > online forays. MS has just abt. pulled even in the multiplayer wars > > (despite being buried in the hardware & shrinkwrap wars), primarily > because > > they did a better job of anticipating cheating. But Sony is learning > fast, > > and is feverishly writing anti-cheating Netcode that will be implemented > in > > GT4. How do I know all this stuff? 'Cuz I spent a lotta time with

Sony's > > game wonks a coupla months ago when I was writing "Car Games for CarGuys" > > for Motor Trend (when I was bowled over by their first GT4 screenies). > > Maybe Sony lied to me...but I don't think so. > > > > "Alex 'pez' Porazinski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:b90uu6$rd7$[email hidden]... > > > RAM cheats? driving aids that allow for completely unrealistic setsthat > > get > > > great tyre wear and can allow quicker speeds than is possible without? > > > wreckers? > > > > > > as its being designed for online play id hazzard a guess that therewill > > be > > > a league system, rankings etc. > > > > > > warp free? the PS2s online capability is pretty much DSL or CABLEonly,

Quoted text (37 lines)

> so > > > you wont get the 56k warpers like you do with n2003 (heck, im one of > em!) > > > > > > pez > > > > > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:YxSsa.811$[email hidden]... > > > > >"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > > > GT4 will also have near-perfect online play. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, it will have a 43 human multiplayer experience that's almost > > > warp-free? > > > > A server/client system like Papy? > > > > > > > > > > > > Track accuracy? > > > > Ranking? > > > > Organised output file system for leagues? > > > > User-painted cars? > > > > Anti-cheat systems? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > > > > -- http://ymenard.cjb.net/ > > > > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez > > > > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Steve, do you mean 1080i (which is 1920x1080 interlaced - more detailed than 1024x768)? That will look amazing. My cable co. just hooked me up with HDTV for free (HBO, ABC, NBC and PBS) and it actually looks better than some DVD's (my set is 4:3 but is 1080i capable). I'm pretty sure the Xbox can currently do 1080i (a handful of games are 720p) but I don't think any game would run at 60 fps at such a high resolution. Here's to the PS3 and Xbox2! :) -- Joe M. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Pwcta.9072$[email hidden]... > Consoles can now be played on HDTVs (there's a better PS2 in the works--call > it the PS2-1/2--which will support 1080p), which is the equivalent of abt. > 1020x768...on a 30-inch (or larger) screen. > > "ThermosBoy (TM)" <.@.> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > people still play games at tv resolution? Gah. :) > >

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > My cable co. just hooked me up with > HDTV for free (HBO, ABC, NBC and PBS) and it actually looks better than some > DVD's (my set is 4:3 but is 1080i capable). > HDTV blows DVD quality away (if you are watching it on an HD capable set of course.) -- __________________________ Todd Walker http://twalker.d2g.com __________________________

Joe M. wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Good AI and good graphics are not mutually exclusive and until a console > does superior online racing than good AI is critical to a RACING game. GTR > 2002 is a fine example of the best of both worlds. No reason to ever dabble > with the MISSING AI in GT3 and only 6 cars of competition when I can run > against 30+ cars in GTR2002 and enjoy the finest sports car RACING > available. The issue is driving vs. racing; GT3 is not racing. > > BTW, GT3 only keeps you busy for a year if you find the AI competent and fun > which I did not. The goal in GT3 is to race past the AI quickly before they > drive you off the road. That's not racing, that's jousting. :)

Ok, I find some aspects of GT3 quite boring. One is the fact that it is possible to obtain a car that outperforms the competition in such a manner that it is virtually impossible to lose. That IS boring. When the races get tighter the computer always drives dirty. Yes, I get your point... The fun in GT3 is the graphics and the hotlapping. Not the competition. I never rely on "good AI" to get a good race, since there are no "good AI" out there. The only good (fun) competitors are my friends. Period!

Quoted text (14 lines)

>>Yeah, what's the point in having the most powerful console when there's >>nothing but crap to run? If the PC wouldn't have any good games I'd >>rather play games that are entertaining on my old Amiga or C64. > > This is a fanboy argument or just completely ignorant. If you enjoy sports > then the Xbox is supreme (best graphics and sound of all consoles and best > selection of sports games). If you enjoy fighting games the Xbox is > excellent (again, no less selection than the PS2 and better graphics and > sound). It also has a fine selection of shooters with Ghost Recon as the > finest example on any console (with Socom an inferior imitation). While the > Xbox lacks GT3 it still has a strong stable of racing with Pro Race driver, > PGR, Rallisport Challenge, MotoGP, CMR3, Nascar Thunder, and SegaGT. Let's > not regress to "my console is bigger than your console", they're all good > and some are simply better for your particular tastes.

Well, but my point is still there. When I used to play around with my Amiga there were Silicon Graphics machines out there which outperformed everything in graphics. Still, no one bought such a machine since it was too expensive and didn't have many games compared to the Amiga. (ok, maybe a bad example, but I hope you get the point)... If there are no games that attracts a certain individual on console-X compared to console-Y, it is natural to get console-Y, even if it has "worse" hardware. I still play old classics like Giana Sisters and Bubble Bobble on the C64, even if the hardware "sucks" compared to present hardware. :)

Quoted text (7 lines)

> There's no killer app on the PS2 for someone like me (I'm 35 years old and > not interested in the mindless nonsense in GTA games) so it was an easy > choice to swap it for an Xbox since I appreciate the progress scan on most > games and Dolby Digital sound and most great games are available on all 3 > consoles. Quite frankly, the Game Cube leads in quality over quantity with > AAA titles like Zelda, Metroid and Super Mario Sunshine. Of course I bought > the GC for my son *cough* because it's a kiddie console. :)

I am 26 and I cannot change to Xbox since I'm addicted to GT3 :\ But on the PC there is Live for Speed and GPL... A couple of years ago I found Need for speed III awesome. Today I don't even want to look at it due to its arcadefeeling. Who knows what kind of game I'll like tomorrow? -- /S

Hi Joe, I gleaned the info over on the AVS forum (or maybe Ars Technica), but can't relocate it. The gist of it was that whatever the Xbox can do, the "PS2-1/2" will be able to do. More info on the upgraded chip powering this baby: ---------------------- Sony plans to launch volume production of new 90nm integratred PlayStation 2 chip combining DRAM memory, EmotionEngine (EE) processor and Graphics in the spring of 2003 combining DRAM memory, EmotionEngine (EE) processor and Graphics Synthesizer (GS) in a single 90nm chip.. Chip specifications: EE: 128-bit RISC processor GS: parallel rendering and built-in DRAM Process technology: 90nm Transistors total: 53.5 million Built-in DRAM: 4Mb Memory cell size: 0.19�m? Clock rate: 294.912MHz Energy consumption: 8W (vs. current 37W) Metallization: 5 layers Crystal size: 86mm? (vs. current 413mm? of EE and GS) Package: 536-pin EBGA Production will be launched at Oita TS Semiconductor (OTSS) facility, SCEI and Toshiba Corporation joint venture, in Fall also launching at proprietary SCEI fab in Isahaya City. ---------------------- Considering the present PS2 has no fps probs w. GT3A, I doubt that GT4 will suffer. --Steve "Joe M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Steve, do you mean 1080i (which is 1920x1080 interlaced - more detailedthan > 1024x768)? That will look amazing. My cable co. just hooked me up with > HDTV for free (HBO, ABC, NBC and PBS) and it actually looks better thansome > DVD's (my set is 4:3 but is 1080i capable). I'm pretty sure the Xbox can > currently do 1080i (a handful of games are 720p) but I don't think anygame > would run at 60 fps at such a high resolution. Here's to the PS3 andXbox2!

Quoted text (11 lines)

> :) > > -- > Joe M. > > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Pwcta.9072$[email hidden]... > > Consoles can now be played on HDTVs (there's a better PS2 in the > works--call > > it the PS2-1/2--which will support 1080p), which is the equivalent of

abt.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > 1020x768...on a 30-inch (or larger) screen. > > > > "ThermosBoy (TM)" <.@.> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > people still play games at tv resolution? Gah. :) > > > > > >

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Sprta.13301$[email hidden]... > Hi Joe, > > I gleaned the info over on the AVS forum (or maybe Ars Technica), butcan't

Quoted text (7 lines)

> relocate it. The gist of it was that whatever the Xbox can do, the > "PS2-1/2" will be able to do. > > More info on the upgraded chip powering this baby: > > ---------------------- > Sony plans to launch volume production of new 90nm integratred PlayStation

2 > chip combining DRAM memory, EmotionEngine (EE) processor and Graphics inthe > spring of 2003 combining DRAM memory, EmotionEngine (EE) processor and > Graphics Synthesizer (GS) in a single 90nm chip.. That doesn't sound like an upgrade. Sounds like the same thing they did with the PS1. Cheaper, smaller, and cooler. Kyle

Hmm, maybe the MS will do something similar. Call it the Xbox pro or something. Throw in a 1.7Ghz Celeron, faster and more RAM, a larger HD and a better GF4 vid chip. I can picture this happening. Can't wait.

If you don't think HDTV is an upgrade...don't buy it! --Lido Iacocca "Kyle Roberts" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jYyta.42668$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Sprta.13301$[email hidden]... > > Hi Joe, > > > > I gleaned the info over on the AVS forum (or maybe Ars Technica), but > can't > > relocate it. The gist of it was that whatever the Xbox can do, the > > "PS2-1/2" will be able to do. > > > > More info on the upgraded chip powering this baby: > > > > ---------------------- > > Sony plans to launch volume production of new 90nm integratred

PlayStation

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 2 > > chip combining DRAM memory, EmotionEngine (EE) processor and Graphics in > the > > spring of 2003 combining DRAM memory, EmotionEngine (EE) processor and > > Graphics Synthesizer (GS) in a single 90nm chip.. > > That doesn't sound like an upgrade. Sounds like the same thing they did

with > the PS1. Cheaper, smaller, and cooler. > > Kyle > >

MS wants to drop the price of the Xbox to $150, but they're already losing $100+ per box 'cuz of that 'spensive HD. Solution: split the product line into Xbox 2 (due Xmas 2004), a set-top box that will play DVDs, run your TV, stream video, comply w. MS' new video initiative, surf the Internet, and--oh yeah--play games; AND Xbox Lite (not it's real name; due Xmas 2003) that will "only" play games...and cost less to manufacture 'cuz the $$$ HD has been replaced with Flash memory cards. Sony learns of this and sez, "Oh yeah? Two can play that game," and builds a better, faster, cheaper PS2. Of course, I could be wrong.... "K e v i n �" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:utDta.53276$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Hmm, maybe the MS will do something similar. > > Call it the Xbox pro or something. Throw in a 1.7Ghz Celeron, faster and > more RAM, a larger HD and a better GF4 vid chip. I can picture this > happening. Can't wait. > >

Now that would be sweet. They are loosing $100+ per box only if their users don't buy the 9+ games they are supposed to (read that this was the average). Doesn't matter, they are in this for the long haul. Loosing $100 a box is there admission price to this competition. The Xbox modders are showing them the way with features people want. I sure hope they throw TVO-esk features into the next one, that would be too cool. 4+Gig flash cards aren't cheap, but they will be though. That would be a good idea, might make the consoles a bit smaller too. They need a web cam and home security system in there too! ;-) "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YFDta.17774$[email hidden]... > MS wants to drop the price of the Xbox to $150, but they're already losing > $100+ per box 'cuz of that 'spensive HD. Solution: split the product line > into Xbox 2 (due Xmas 2004), a set-top box that will play DVDs, run yourTV, > stream video, comply w. MS' new video initiative, surf the Internet,and--oh

Quoted text (11 lines)

> yeah--play games; AND Xbox Lite (not it's real name; due Xmas 2003) that > will "only" play games...and cost less to manufacture 'cuz the $$$ HD has > been replaced with Flash memory cards. Sony learns of this and sez, "Oh > yeah? Two can play that game," and builds a better, faster, cheaper PS2. > Of course, I could be wrong.... > > "K e v i n �" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:utDta.53276$[email hidden]... > > Hmm, maybe the MS will do something similar. > > > > Call it the Xbox pro or something. Throw in a 1.7Ghz Celeron, faster

and > > more RAM, a larger HD and a better GF4 vid chip. I can picture this > > happening. Can't wait. > > > > > >

It's an upgrade for sure. I love my 51" HDTV (Sony of course) and the 5.1 Dolby Digtal from my Xbox. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rwDta.17736$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> If you don't think HDTV is an upgrade...don't buy it! > > --Lido Iacocca > > "Kyle Roberts" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:jYyta.42668$[email hidden]... > > > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Sprta.13301$[email hidden]... > > > Hi Joe, > > > > > > I gleaned the info over on the AVS forum (or maybe Ars Technica), but > > can't > > > relocate it. The gist of it was that whatever the Xbox can do, the > > > "PS2-1/2" will be able to do. > > > > > > More info on the upgraded chip powering this baby: > > > > > > ---------------------- > > > Sony plans to launch volume production of new 90nm integratred > PlayStation > > 2 > > > chip combining DRAM memory, EmotionEngine (EE) processor and Graphics

in

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > the > > > spring of 2003 combining DRAM memory, EmotionEngine (EE) processor and > > > Graphics Synthesizer (GS) in a single 90nm chip.. > > > > That doesn't sound like an upgrade. Sounds like the same thing they did > with > > the PS1. Cheaper, smaller, and cooler. > > > > Kyle > > > > > >

Sony makes money on every PS2 they sell (cost long-since amortized) *and* on every game. In fact, Sony's games division is the most profitable in the whole company (which includes TV sets, movie studios, music publishers, etc.). MS' games division, OTOH, lost a third of a billion bucks last year. Their h/w is hemorrhaging cash and the games aren't selling at all (with a couple of obvious exceptions like Halo). The one bright spot in MS' picture is that their online program (broadband-only vs. Sony's bb+dial-up) is pulling even w. Sony's. Like I say, Gran Turismo 4 (due this fall) should be a killer online game, altho beaten to market by MS' first big online driving game, Midtown Madness (due this summer). I've driven MM, BTW, and it's really great...for an arcade racer. Yes, the Xbox 2 will have a TiVo-like feature. Sony's version of "convergence" will be a couple years more down the road. "K e v i n �" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2MDta.53285$[email hidden]... > Now that would be sweet. They are loosing $100+ per box only if theirusers > don't buy the 9+ games they are supposed to (read that this was the > average). Doesn't matter, they are in this for the long haul. Loosing > $100 a box is there admission price to this competition. > > The Xbox modders are showing them the way with features people want. Isure > hope they throw TVO-esk features into the next one, that would be toocool.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> 4+Gig flash cards aren't cheap, but they will be though. That would be a > good idea, might make the consoles a bit smaller too. > > They need a web cam and home security system in there too! ;-) > > > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:YFDta.17774$[email hidden]... > > MS wants to drop the price of the Xbox to $150, but they're already

losing > > $100+ per box 'cuz of that 'spensive HD. Solution: split the productline > > into Xbox 2 (due Xmas 2004), a set-top box that will play DVDs, run your > TV, > > stream video, comply w. MS' new video initiative, surf the Internet, > and--oh > > yeah--play games; AND Xbox Lite (not it's real name; due Xmas 2003) that > > will "only" play games...and cost less to manufacture 'cuz the $$$ HDhas > > been replaced with Flash memory cards. Sony learns of this and sez, "Oh > > yeah? Two can play that game," and builds a better, faster, cheaperPS2.

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > Of course, I could be wrong.... > > > > "K e v i n �" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:utDta.53276$[email hidden]... > > > Hmm, maybe the MS will do something similar. > > > > > > Call it the Xbox pro or something. Throw in a 1.7Ghz Celeron, faster > and > > > more RAM, a larger HD and a better GF4 vid chip. I can picture this > > > happening. Can't wait. > > > > > > > > > > > >

Oh, and the mem cards don't need to be 4-Gb (currently abt. $500). As Sony (and Nintendo) have proved, you only need a new megabytes to save game options/preferences/scores and even fairly long replays. The main thing Flash memory would do for MS is to get the cost of the memory out of the box and leave it up to the consumer. For abt. the cost of an 8-Mb memory cartridge for the PS2, you'll prolly be able to get a 32-Mb. memory card for the Xbox Lite. "K e v i n �" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2MDta.53285$[email hidden]... > Now that would be sweet. They are loosing $100+ per box only if theirusers > don't buy the 9+ games they are supposed to (read that this was the > average). Doesn't matter, they are in this for the long haul. Loosing > $100 a box is there admission price to this competition. > > The Xbox modders are showing them the way with features people want. Isure > hope they throw TVO-esk features into the next one, that would be toocool.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> 4+Gig flash cards aren't cheap, but they will be though. That would be a > good idea, might make the consoles a bit smaller too. > > They need a web cam and home security system in there too! ;-) > > > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:YFDta.17774$[email hidden]... > > MS wants to drop the price of the Xbox to $150, but they're already

losing > > $100+ per box 'cuz of that 'spensive HD. Solution: split the productline > > into Xbox 2 (due Xmas 2004), a set-top box that will play DVDs, run your > TV, > > stream video, comply w. MS' new video initiative, surf the Internet, > and--oh > > yeah--play games; AND Xbox Lite (not it's real name; due Xmas 2003) that > > will "only" play games...and cost less to manufacture 'cuz the $$$ HDhas > > been replaced with Flash memory cards. Sony learns of this and sez, "Oh > > yeah? Two can play that game," and builds a better, faster, cheaperPS2.

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > Of course, I could be wrong.... > > > > "K e v i n �" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:utDta.53276$[email hidden]... > > > Hmm, maybe the MS will do something similar. > > > > > > Call it the Xbox pro or something. Throw in a 1.7Ghz Celeron, faster > and > > > more RAM, a larger HD and a better GF4 vid chip. I can picture this > > > happening. Can't wait. > > > > > > > > > > > >

> Sony makes money on every PS2 they sell (cost long-since amortized) *and*on > every game. Hardly surprising - there's nothing cutting-edge about the PS2's hardware....

> Oh, and the mem cards don't need to be 4-Gb (currently abt. $500). AsSony > (and Nintendo) have proved, you only need a new megabytes to save game > options/preferences/scores and even fairly long replays. The main thing > Flash memory would do for MS is to get the cost of the memory out of thebox > and leave it up to the consumer. For abt. the cost of an 8-Mb memory > cartridge for the PS2, you'll prolly be able to get a 32-Mb. memory cardfor > the Xbox Lite. You make it sound like the consumers are paying extra to have a hard-disk inside their Xboxs. Last time I checked, the Xbox was about the same price as the (memory-less) PS2. I've seen how long it takes a PS2 to load games - despite their inferior graphics and 2-channel sound. When you buy an Xbox, you're not buying a device - you're buying a distribution channel for games. It's kind of like cable TV - the companies don't make money out of the STBs - it's the content that makes the money. It's just a shame that it takes an evil, monopolistic company like Microsoft to give an even less ethical company like Sony some competition. The PS3 *may* actually contain some decent hardware for a change. That would be new ground for Sony and it'd be thanks to pressure from Microsoft. Anyone who buys a PS2 because they think it's technically superior needs their head examined. The only valid reasons for buying a PS2 are:- 1. You don't like Microsoft (fair enough) 2. You prefer safety in numbers (sales) and don't really care about graphics or sound quality.

On Mon, 5 May 2003 21:57:24 -0300, "K e v i n �" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Now that would be sweet. They are loosing $100+ per box only if their users >don't buy the 9+ games they are supposed to (read that this was the >average). Doesn't matter, they are in this for the long haul. Loosing >$100 a box is there admission price to this competition. What if the XBox2 comes out before they get enough games cash to win back the $100? And with too many features, an XBox would turn back into a... PC?! Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

On Tue, 6 May 2003 21:48:52 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> Sony makes money on every PS2 they sell (cost long-since amortized) *and* >on >> every game. > >Hardly surprising - there's nothing cutting-edge about the PS2's >hardware.... The graphics bandwidth (48Gb/s IIRC) is still a nice touch for graphics-intensive stuff (usable for blurring for example; that's still hard to do on PC's). Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

On Tue, 6 May 2003 22:06:34 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote: ...

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Anyone who buys a PS2 because they think it's technically superior needs >their head examined. The only valid reasons for buying a PS2 are:- > >1. You don't like Microsoft (fair enough) > >2. You prefer safety in numbers (sales) and don't really care about graphics >or sound quality.

Sound quality can be ok on PS2; it has an optical digital output so basically anything can be done. Dolby Digital 5.1 is supported by some games (http://www.dolby.com/games/sony.ps2.faq.html) Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

On Tue, 6 May 2003 22:06:34 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote: >It's just a shame that it takes an evil, monopolistic company like Microsoft >to give an even less ethical company like Sony some competition. The PS3 >*may* actually contain some decent hardware for a change. That would be new >ground for Sony and it'd be thanks to pressure from Microsoft. New ground for Sony would be building a console that didn't break every 3 months. Jason

"Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Tue, 6 May 2003 22:06:34 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > ... > >Anyone who buys a PS2 because they think it's technically superior needs > >their head examined. The only valid reasons for buying a PS2 are:- > > > >1. You don't like Microsoft (fair enough) > > > >2. You prefer safety in numbers (sales) and don't really care about

graphics

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >or sound quality. > > Sound quality can be ok on PS2; it has an optical digital output so > basically anything can be done. Dolby Digital 5.1 is supported by some > games (http://www.dolby.com/games/sony.ps2.faq.html) > >

The PS2 may have DD 5.1 but it sounds nothing like any Xbox game and it's not available in most titles (whereas on the Xbox DD 5.1 is the rule rather than the exception). When I hooked up my Xbox (after trading in my PS2) I was FLOORED by the audio quality. The PS2 never sounded as good. MS has spanked PS2 technologically speaking and frankly I don't see the huge advantage of 600 mediocre titles for the selective mature gamer. If you're a PC fan first then the Xbox is a great choice for sports, shooters and a few driving games. If the console is your only gaming platform than the sheer volume of PS2 games might be more important to you (I vote for quality over quantity and haven't missed the PS2). The only thing holding the Xbox back is the cross-platform development catering to the lowest common denominator (PS2). There's even a piece on this about the Matrix game. Sony's marketing $$$ insured that the game was developed for their console first and ported to the Xbox and GC. There's no question an Xbox only Matrix game would be superior. It's a shame that older hardware is holding the industry back. -- Joe M.

On Sun, 04 May 2003 01:58:46 GMT, Todd Walker <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

>In article <jZIsa.18232$h%[email hidden]>, >[email hidden] says... >> Anyways, I was playing Gran Turismo 3 A-Spec at my friends house just this >> week. It's a game that you can pop in, and everyone can get into it. That's >> what console games are all about. But wow.. does it look beautiful. I'd >> STILL say it has the most realistic graphics. I can't pin down why... maybe >> the textures and the lighting?? >> >> It's like, everything was made to look REAL. Take the car models from >> GTR2002, they're definately more detailed. The skins are higher resolution, >> etc. But a replay of the GT3spec viper is way more likely to be a television >> broadcast of the real thing in my opinion. I just don't know why though. >> Maybe because everything is so CLEAN or, artifically dirty in video games >> now.. or lighting isn't done right. I have no clue.. > >I haven't been able to put my finger on it either but you are right -- >the graphics in GT3 are amazing. The main reason I play the game is to >watch the replays. The car models are dead on accurate, the camera views >are realistic (for the most part,) the lighting and textures are first >rate, and the frame rate is excellent.

The reflections are great, the shadows work wonders (driving under a banner, that sort of stuff). Also, a simple camera thing is used; camera targets that move realistically. Most games just target the car so it's in the dead center, which gives a clean feel. If you've played Moto GP2 or GP3, you can see they add 2 sine motions to the target, which is better than nothing, but still sucks. GT3 seems to use a target with mass and uses forces to point to the car. Well, at least that's how I'm going to do it. :) Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

No, there's only *one* reason to buy a PS2: BETTER GAMES! "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b988gf$ge7vn$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > Oh, and the mem cards don't need to be 4-Gb (currently abt. $500). As > Sony > > (and Nintendo) have proved, you only need a new megabytes to save game > > options/preferences/scores and even fairly long replays. The main thing > > Flash memory would do for MS is to get the cost of the memory out of the > box > > and leave it up to the consumer. For abt. the cost of an 8-Mb memory > > cartridge for the PS2, you'll prolly be able to get a 32-Mb. memory card > for > > the Xbox Lite. > > You make it sound like the consumers are paying extra to have a hard-disk > inside their Xboxs. Last time I checked, the Xbox was about the same

price > as the (memory-less) PS2. I've seen how long it takes a PS2 to loadgames - > despite their inferior graphics and 2-channel sound. > > When you buy an Xbox, you're not buying a device - you're buying a > distribution channel for games. It's kind of like cable TV - thecompanies > don't make money out of the STBs - it's the content that makes the money. > > It's just a shame that it takes an evil, monopolistic company likeMicrosoft > to give an even less ethical company like Sony some competition. The PS3 > *may* actually contain some decent hardware for a change. That would benew

Quoted text (8 lines)

> ground for Sony and it'd be thanks to pressure from Microsoft. > > Anyone who buys a PS2 because they think it's technically superior needs > their head examined. The only valid reasons for buying a PS2 are:- > > 1. You don't like Microsoft (fair enough) > > 2. You prefer safety in numbers (sales) and don't really care about

graphics > or sound quality. > >

Which is precisely why Sony is upgrading the sound in the PS2-1/2. "Joe M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Tue, 6 May 2003 22:06:34 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> > > wrote: > > > > ... > > >Anyone who buys a PS2 because they think it's technically superior

needs

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > >their head examined. The only valid reasons for buying a PS2 are:- > > > > > >1. You don't like Microsoft (fair enough) > > > > > >2. You prefer safety in numbers (sales) and don't really care about > graphics > > >or sound quality. > > > > Sound quality can be ok on PS2; it has an optical digital output so > > basically anything can be done. Dolby Digital 5.1 is supported by some > > games (http://www.dolby.com/games/sony.ps2.faq.html) > > > > > > The PS2 may have DD 5.1 but it sounds nothing like any Xbox game and it's > not available in most titles (whereas on the Xbox DD 5.1 is the rule

rather > than the exception). When I hooked up my Xbox (after trading in my PS2) I > was FLOORED by the audio quality. The PS2 never sounded as good. > > MS has spanked PS2 technologically speaking and frankly I don't see thehuge > advantage of 600 mediocre titles for the selective mature gamer. Ifyou're > a PC fan first then the Xbox is a great choice for sports, shooters and a > few driving games. If the console is your only gaming platform than the > sheer volume of PS2 games might be more important to you (I vote forquality > over quantity and haven't missed the PS2). > > The only thing holding the Xbox back is the cross-platform development > catering to the lowest common denominator (PS2). There's even a piece on > this about the Matrix game. Sony's marketing $$$ insured that the gamewas > developed for their console first and ported to the Xbox and GC. There'sno

Quoted text (7 lines)

> question an Xbox only Matrix game would be superior. It's a shame that > older hardware is holding the industry back. > > -- > Joe M. > >

I've had mine for 6 months and it seems bulletproof. But then, I've kept my destructive 10-year-old away from it. (He got--and prefers--the Xbox pf the 2 consoles I got for the MT story.) "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Tue, 6 May 2003 22:06:34 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >It's just a shame that it takes an evil, monopolistic company likeMicrosoft > >to give an even less ethical company like Sony some competition. The PS3 > >*may* actually contain some decent hardware for a change. That would benew > >ground for Sony and it'd be thanks to pressure from Microsoft. > > New ground for Sony would be building a console that didn't break > every 3 months. > > Jason

Is that a lightbulb I see above yer head? After denigrating the idea of a "thin client," the Internet Appliance, A/V convergence, and even trashing their own invention (Web TV), Microsoft has finally come around to the idea of a PC for the rest of the family, i.e., one atop (or next to) the TV in the living room. The Xbox "Lite" is a leave-behind to battle the "PS2-1/2" while the Xbox 2 will be what the gamers always suspected the Xbox 1 was: a Trojan Horse to get MS into the home entertainment biz. The paranoid grognards were right after all: there IS somebody out to get them! "Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 5 May 2003 21:57:24 -0300, "K e v i n �" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Now that would be sweet. They are loosing $100+ per box only if theirusers

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >don't buy the 9+ games they are supposed to (read that this was the > >average). Doesn't matter, they are in this for the long haul. Loosing > >$100 a box is there admission price to this competition. > > What if the XBox2 comes out before they get enough games cash to win > back the $100? > > And with too many features, an XBox would turn back into a... PC?! > > > Ruud van Gaal > Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ > Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

"Stefan Larsson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b92hkd$ss4$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> ymenard wrote: > >>"Mike Beauchamp" <[email hidden]> wrote > >>Wow.. the consoles have won > > > > Graphics smalphiscs, WHO CARES!! > > > > The Gran Turismo series doesn't even equal the quality in physics and

game

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > engine complexities of NASCAR RACING 3. > > Well, in GT3 I get the opportunity to turn right once in a while for a > change... ;) > > -- > /S >

Agreed, I love the graphics of N2K3 the effects etc...................the only problem with the sim is its Nascar Racing one of the most damn boring forms of auto racing ....IMO............but those who enjoy it more power to ya.

Steve Smith wrote: > Sony makes money on every PS2 they sell (cost long-since amortized) *and* on > every game. In fact, Sony's games division is the most profitable in the > whole company (which includes TV sets, movie studios, music publishers, > etc.). MS' games division, OTOH, lost a third of a billion bucks last year. > Their h/w is hemorrhaging cash and the games aren't selling at all (with a > couple of obvious exceptions like Halo). Good thing the PS2 is making money... As the "Sony shock" continues to stun investors around the globe, many are asking: Where were the analysts? Sony had a net loss of �111.1 billion ($927 million) in the three months that ended March 31 - triple some analysts' estimates. The loss caught markets flat-footed. Really flat-footed, in fact. http://www.iht.com/articles/94788.html

Yeah, they lost money almost everywhere EXCEPT games.... To me, the biggest 'shokku' coming off the Pacific Rim is the revitalization of Nissan after being bought out by Renault. Talk abt. yer LOSERS! "Internet User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Steve Smith wrote: > > > Sony makes money on every PS2 they sell (cost long-since amortized)*and* on > > every game. In fact, Sony's games division is the most profitable inthe > > whole company (which includes TV sets, movie studios, music publishers, > > etc.). MS' games division, OTOH, lost a third of a billion bucks lastyear. > > Their h/w is hemorrhaging cash and the games aren't selling at all (witha

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > couple of obvious exceptions like Halo). > > Good thing the PS2 is making money... > > As the "Sony shock" continues to stun investors around the globe, many > are asking: Where were the analysts? Sony had a net loss of �111.1 > billion ($927 million) in the three months that ended March 31 - triple > some analysts' estimates. The loss caught markets flat-footed. Really > flat-footed, in fact. > > http://www.iht.com/articles/94788.html >

Can someone tell me where I can see said screens of GT4? "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Hx6ua.34444$[email hidden]... > Yeah, they lost money almost everywhere EXCEPT games.... > > To me, the biggest 'shokku' coming off the Pacific Rim is therevitalization

Quoted text (11 lines)

> of Nissan after being bought out by Renault. Talk abt. yer LOSERS! > > "Internet User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Steve Smith wrote: > > > > > Sony makes money on every PS2 they sell (cost long-since amortized) > *and* on > > > every game. In fact, Sony's games division is the most profitable in > the > > > whole company (which includes TV sets, movie studios, music

publishers, > > > etc.). MS' games division, OTOH, lost a third of a billion bucks last > year. > > > Their h/w is hemorrhaging cash and the games aren't selling at all(with

Quoted text (15 lines)

> a > > > couple of obvious exceptions like Halo). > > > > Good thing the PS2 is making money... > > > > As the "Sony shock" continues to stun investors around the globe, many > > are asking: Where were the analysts? Sony had a net loss of �111.1 > > billion ($927 million) in the three months that ended March 31 - triple > > some analysts' estimates. The loss caught markets flat-footed. Really > > flat-footed, in fact. > > > > http://www.iht.com/articles/94788.html > > > >

On Tue, 06 May 2003 20:44:04 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I've had mine for 6 months and it seems bulletproof. But then, I've kept my >destructive 10-year-old away from it. (He got--and prefers--the Xbox pf the >2 consoles I got for the MT story.) Weird. I would have assumed he preferred the PS2, it seems to have many more games for kids. I'm thinking I may use the security deposit I'm receiving from moving this month to pick up a ps2 and a bunch of games. With Vice City for the PC around the corner, I'm not so sure tho. Jason

Hey don't dis Nissan, their cars are HOT! Love that 350z. :-) PS - It's in Sega GT2002!!!

Steve Smith wrote: > etc.). MS' games division, OTOH, lost a third of a billion bucks last year. > Their h/w is hemorrhaging cash and the games aren't selling at all (with a > couple of obvious exceptions like Halo). The one bright spot in MS' picture > is that their online program (broadband-only vs. Sony's bb+dial-up) is > pulling even w. Sony's. You're forgetting the second and more important bright spot for MS: money. Micro$oft kan *afford* to be hemorrhaging cash until every competitor is dead as a doornail. And they will. Never, never count MS out until it has officially given up - since history shows it *will* try again until it rules the roost. Completely. Microsoft is not afraid of Sony and it is not afraid to bleed. On the contrary, it will bide its time until Sony is weak and ready for a takeover. It has only *one* thing it's afraid of: Linux. Regards, Ruud

Ruud Dingemans It has only *one* thing it's afraid of: Linux. > > Regards, Ruud > For several years MS was afraid of AOL. Not anymore I thinks. dave henrie

I think the 350Z was *designed* by Sega! "K e v i n �" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Ubgua.54599$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Hey don't dis Nissan, their cars are HOT! Love that 350z. :-) > > PS - It's in Sega GT2002!!! > > > >

MS have given themselves 4 years and $4 billion to dethrone Sony. "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Ruud Dingemans > It has only *one* thing it's afraid of: Linux. > > > > Regards, Ruud > > > For several years MS was afraid of AOL. Not anymore I thinks. > > dave henrie

Save yer $$$ for GT4 and the upgraded PS2 (both due by Xmas) and I'll race you online. "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Tue, 06 May 2003 20:44:04 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I've had mine for 6 months and it seems bulletproof. But then, I've keptmy > >destructive 10-year-old away from it. (He got--and prefers--the Xbox pfthe

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >2 consoles I got for the MT story.) > > Weird. I would have assumed he preferred the PS2, it seems to have > many more games for kids. > > I'm thinking I may use the security deposit I'm receiving from moving > this month to pick up a ps2 and a bunch of games. With Vice City for > the PC around the corner, I'm not so sure tho. > > Jason

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YAqua.44315$[email hidden]... > I think the 350Z was *designed* by Sega! > Steve.........Virtual world.....Real World.....Virtual World....Real World :)

> Save yer $$$ for GT4 and the upgraded PS2 (both due by Xmas) and I'll race > you online. Nah...Project Gotham 2 will own GT4 if history is anything to go by.

Given that Sony NEEDS the PS2 to succeed as a company while a complete Xbox failure would have no significant impact on MFST financials there's little doubt MSFT will succeed if not lead in the console market. They have the greatest luxury; tons of $$$ and no fear/desperation. MSFT knows it's better to own 60% of this market in 5+ years when gross revenue doubles or triples. This has always been a long-term strategy for MSFT and I wouldn't be surprised if their "losses" are less than anticipated so they're ahead of schedule. Loyalty doesn't exist in that market segment so if the Xbox2 has greater or equal market share to the PS2 you can be sure key developers will let exclusivity contracts expire and develop games for the Xbox 2. It happened to Sega, it happened to Nintendo, it will likely happen to Sony. No one stays on top forever in the console game. -- Joe M. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:OCqua.44332$[email hidden]... > MS have given themselves 4 years and $4 billion to dethrone Sony. > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Ruud Dingemans > > It has only *one* thing it's afraid of: Linux. > > > > > > Regards, Ruud > > > > > For several years MS was afraid of AOL. Not anymore I thinks. > > > > dave henrie > >

On Tue, 6 May 2003 09:57:00 -0400, "Joe M." <[email hidden]> wrote: > >"Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]......

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> Sound quality can be ok on PS2; it has an optical digital output so >> basically anything can be done. Dolby Digital 5.1 is supported by some >> games (http://www.dolby.com/games/sony.ps2.faq.html) > >The PS2 may have DD 5.1 but it sounds nothing like any Xbox game and it's >not available in most titles (whereas on the Xbox DD 5.1 is the rule rather >than the exception). When I hooked up my Xbox (after trading in my PS2) I >was FLOORED by the audio quality. The PS2 never sounded as good.

I see indeed that the XBox has DD hardware included. Quite nice. ... >The only thing holding the Xbox back is the cross-platform development >catering to the lowest common denominator (PS2). There's even a piece on >this about the Matrix game. Sony's marketing $$$ insured that the game was >developed for their console first and ported to the Xbox and GC. There's no >question an Xbox only Matrix game would be superior. It's a shame that >older hardware is holding the industry back. Hehe, welcome to the ancient PC architectures. :) Just about any non-PC I've ever worked with has better multitasking than PC's (be it Windows or Linux-Intel). Must be something with those interrupts. The XBox is a bit too PC-y for me personally. On the other hand, when playing games, I hugely go for gameplay. Graphics gets better but it's ok as it is mostly these days, audio should be surround, I agree, but once you're there you get to the limits of what graphics & audio can do for your game (gosh, I've seen too much GameDev material ;-) ). An old arcade game like Galaxians can sometimes still take me away from NFS. :) Pure gameplay. Immersion is the next frontier. You have the hardware, but now the content must be right. Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

On Tue, 06 May 2003 20:50:54 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Is that a lightbulb I see above yer head? After denigrating the idea of a >"thin client," the Internet Appliance, A/V convergence, and even trashing >their own invention (Web TV), Microsoft has finally come around to the idea >of a PC for the rest of the family, i.e., one atop (or next to) the TV in >the living room. I'm abit old-school. I use my cellphone for calling only for example. I don't surf with it, since the screen is so small it's the same as moving from nice analog TV signal to those dirty MPEG AVI's that our Discovery Channel here broadcasts. :) The old stuff was better. I don't WANT my TV to become a computer. A TV is for relaxed watching mostly. Still, there is an entire generation (and perhaps more to come) that seems to want to interact more. I like specialized machines; a car that drivers, a computer that plays some games and computes, a PS2 that plays games troublefree. Hell, I even hate to use my DVD player to play CD's since it takes ages for it to discover what it has just sucked in. My crap CD player just opens & closes, plays the thing and that's it. My phone should just call, instead of try and run my agenda. A console should play games, and not try to do it all and get lots of uses, and become mediocre for all those uses. That's my theory. I might live on Mars though and have it all wrong. It's just my little universe. ;-) Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

I guess you haven't heard: one of the biggest aftermarket companies in Japan is owned by the guy who designed GT3. RW drivers kept clamoring for the mods he introduced in the game...so he started making RW add-on pieces for rice-burners like the Skyline, and today it's a multi-million-dollar biz. Real? Virtual? What's the diff? "Ashley McConnell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b9dd9o$fap$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:YAqua.44315$[email hidden]... > > I think the 350Z was *designed* by Sega! > > > > Steve.........Virtual world.....Real World.....Virtual World....Real World > :) > >

A billion here, a billion there...after a while it starts to add up to some REAL money. (And we're not talking yen.) "Joe M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Given that Sony NEEDS the PS2 to succeed as a company while a completeXbox > failure would have no significant impact on MFST financials there's little > doubt MSFT will succeed if not lead in the console market. They have the > greatest luxury; tons of $$$ and no fear/desperation. MSFT knows it's > better to own 60% of this market in 5+ years when gross revenue doubles or > triples. This has always been a long-term strategy for MSFT and Iwouldn't > be surprised if their "losses" are less than anticipated so they're aheadof > schedule. > > Loyalty doesn't exist in that market segment so if the Xbox2 has greateror > equal market share to the PS2 you can be sure key developers will let > exclusivity contracts expire and develop games for the Xbox 2. Ithappened

Quoted text (25 lines)

> to Sega, it happened to Nintendo, it will likely happen to Sony. No one > stays on top forever in the console game. > > -- > Joe M. > > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:OCqua.44332$[email hidden]... > > MS have given themselves 4 years and $4 billion to dethrone Sony. > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Ruud Dingemans > > > It has only *one* thing it's afraid of: Linux. > > > > > > > > Regards, Ruud > > > > > > > For several years MS was afraid of AOL. Not anymore I thinks. > > > > > > dave henrie > > > > > >

PSM, the PS2 mag, loves Midnight Club 2 (which I haven't played). They gave it a 10. "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b9dg06$i8bbo$[email hidden]... > > Save yer $$$ for GT4 and the upgraded PS2 (both due by Xmas) and I'llrace > > you online. > > Nah...Project Gotham 2 will own GT4 if history is anything to go by. > >

In article <7nxua.118463$[email hidden]>, ssmith12 @rochester.rr.com says... > PSM, the PS2 mag, loves Midnight Club 2 (which I haven't played). They gave > it a 10. > It's fun for an hour or so but then it gets pretty boring. Not even in the same league as GT3. -- __________________________ Todd Walker http://twalker.d2g.com __________________________

Todd Walker wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> In article <7nxua.118463$[email hidden]>, ssmith12 > @rochester.rr.com says... > >>PSM, the PS2 mag, loves Midnight Club 2 (which I haven't played). They gave >>it a 10. >> > > > It's fun for an hour or so but then it gets pretty boring. Not even in > the same league as GT3.

I just picked up Ferrari 355 Challenge for PS2 the other day. Thought it was boring at a start, but then I got hooked. Really fun, despite bad collision physics and a steering dead-zone... GT3 doesn't have much to come with there... I don't think I've seen any good review of F355, everybody just seem to think that it is boring with only one car and that it is too difficult. I couldn't disagree more! -- /S

I believe Randy Magruder, of www.digitalsports.com, loved Ferrari 355 Challenge. "Stefan Larsson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b9fgoe$edr$[email hidden]... > Todd Walker wrote: > > In article <7nxua.118463$[email hidden]>, ssmith12 > > @rochester.rr.com says... > > > >>PSM, the PS2 mag, loves Midnight Club 2 (which I haven't played). Theygave

Quoted text (17 lines)

> >>it a 10. > >> > > > > > > It's fun for an hour or so but then it gets pretty boring. Not even in > > the same league as GT3. > > I just picked up Ferrari 355 Challenge for PS2 the other day. Thought it > was boring at a start, but then I got hooked. Really fun, despite bad > collision physics and a steering dead-zone... GT3 doesn't have much to > come with there... I don't think I've seen any good review of F355, > everybody just seem to think that it is boring with only one car and > that it is too difficult. I couldn't disagree more! > > -- > /S >

"Stefan Larsson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b9fgoe$edr$[email hidden]... > Todd Walker wrote: > > In article <7nxua.118463$[email hidden]>, ssmith12 > > @rochester.rr.com says... > > > >>PSM, the PS2 mag, loves Midnight Club 2 (which I haven't played). Theygave

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >>it a 10. > >> > > > > > > It's fun for an hour or so but then it gets pretty boring. Not even in > > the same league as GT3. > > I just picked up Ferrari 355 Challenge for PS2 the other day. Thought it > was boring at a start, but then I got hooked. Really fun, despite bad > collision physics and a steering dead-zone... GT3 doesn't have much to > come with there... I don't think I've seen any good review of F355, > everybody just seem to think that it is boring with only one car and > that it is too difficult. I couldn't disagree more! >

It was better on the Dreamcast. I had a Thrustmaster Ferrari wheel which had no FF (since the DC didn't support FF) but tight and precise steering (which become tighter the more you turned the wheel) giving it surprisingly good feel for a $40 wheel. The steering response was great and there was no annoying dead zone issue that I recall. It's really a shame the DC tanked since for its time it had the best driving sims/games. -- Joe M.

"Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<b9dg06$i8bbo$[email hidden]>... > > Save yer $$$ for GT4 and the upgraded PS2 (both due by Xmas) and I'll race > > you online. > > Nah...Project Gotham 2 will own GT4 if history is anything to go by. If history is anything to go by, GT4 will become the most played vehicle-based game on planet Earth.

In article <NOLua.123783$[email hidden]>, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I believe Randy Magruder, of www.digitalsports.com, loved Ferrari 355 >Challenge. At least the DC version. Don't know if he was as enthused about the PS2 version. Which is essentially a rehash and apparently doesn't take advantage of the PS2's extra power. (I have the DC version, but never bothered getting the PS2 version due to the above).

Nick wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<b9dg06$i8bbo$[email hidden]>... > >>>Save yer $$$ for GT4 and the upgraded PS2 (both due by Xmas) and I'll race >>>you online. >> >>Nah...Project Gotham 2 will own GT4 if history is anything to go by. > > > If history is anything to go by, GT4 will become the most played > vehicle-based game on planet Earth.

With the worst AI on the planet. Lousy aerodynamics modelling, and a whopping 6 opponents. Of course it will be online so you'll get to race against wrong way drivers and 56K'ers. BTW, The upgraded PS2.... is going to play DVD-R's and DvD-RW's as well as support progressive video. That's it for the upgrades. No increased horsepower, no better sound, nada.

"Internet User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Nick wrote: > > "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:<b9dg06$i8bbo$[email hidden]>... > > > >>>Save yer $$$ for GT4 and the upgraded PS2 (both due by Xmas) and I'llrace

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >>>you online. > >> > >>Nah...Project Gotham 2 will own GT4 if history is anything to go by. > > > > > > If history is anything to go by, GT4 will become the most played > > vehicle-based game on planet Earth. > > With the worst AI on the planet. Lousy aerodynamics modelling, and a > whopping 6 opponents. Of course it will be online so you'll get to race > against wrong way drivers and 56K'ers. >

Exactly. Seems like the GT series brings out the greatest hyperbole on earth. :) Most popular has never equaled BEST. > BTW, The upgraded PS2.... is going to play DVD-R's and DvD-RW's as well > as support progressive video. That's it for the upgrades. No increased > horsepower, no better sound, nada. > This makes sense since there's no point in producing a marginally more powerful console when everything must be optimized for the original PS2. How will older games benefit when most PS2 titles already run at 30-60 fps? I doubt there's a special texture pack in these old games that will be unlocked. -- Joe M.

Joe M. wrote: > > This makes sense since there's no point in producing a marginally more > powerful console when everything must be optimized for the original PS2. > How will older games benefit when most PS2 titles already run at 30-60 fps? > I doubt there's a special texture pack in these old games that will be > unlocked. Years ago when the Dreamcast was announced, rumors started about the PS 1.5. It was going to have a faster processor and to help launch it there was a new version of Tekken developed for it. A Tekken that would run on both old and new PS's but would take advantage of the extra horsepower. Obviously this never happened. Funny that rumors are circulating of a PS 2.5. Coincidence? Here's an article on the redesign of the PS2. http://news.com.com/2100-1043-996748.html

> Exactly. Seems like the GT series brings out the greatest hyperbole on > earth. :) Most popular has never equaled BEST. Here we go again.... Hehe ;-) Although I am a huge PC/Papy sim fan, they haven't ever made anything that felt as close to actually driving a car as GT3 feels. The physics in GT3, while not accurately simulating the wind resistance of the guy waving the chequered flag, do feel, er, *right*. The cars feel (and look) like they are actually driving on tarmac. It's something I really can't describe very well, but nothing else really comes close to that sensation. I'd say that LFS is progressing very nicely in that department, though. I'm not saying that GT3 is more realistic than Papy stuff, just that the cars feel connected to the road in exactly the same way as real cars do, and exactly the same way that GPL/NR2003 cars don't. Oh yeah, and nobody really gives a **** about Nascar. <pulls on concrete overcoat, hehe> By the way, you can't connect to the PS2 online thing over here with a 56k connection, it's broadband only.

"Joe M." wrote: > > Exactly. Seems like the GT series brings out the greatest hyperbole on > earth. :) Most popular has never equaled BEST. Actually it has, Civilization was one of the best selling PC titles, at one point I believe it was *the* most sold PC title of all times Of course, this was in the days before graphics became more important than substance and gameplay and game developers actually had to come up with good ideas and couldn't hide rehashed games behind flashy graphics Now if anyone needs to get in touch with me I'll be over here playing Rail Road Tycoon, not RRT 2 or RRT deluxe, the original one, and I'll be doing it on a 486 running DOS, none of this fancy Windows crap I'm with Dave Henrie, no to progress, who needs it !! Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > > "Joe M." wrote: > > > > Exactly. Seems like the GT series brings out the greatest hyperbole on > > earth. :) Most popular has never equaled BEST. > > Actually it has, Civilization was one of the best selling PC titles, at > one point I believe it was *the* most sold PC title of all times > > Of course, this was in the days before graphics became more important > than substance and gameplay and game developers actually had to come up > with good ideas and couldn't hide rehashed games behind flashy graphics > > Now if anyone needs to get in touch with me I'll be over here playing > Rail Road Tycoon, not RRT 2 or RRT deluxe, the original one, and I'll be > doing it on a 486 running DOS, none of this fancy Windows crap > > I'm with Dave Henrie, no to progress, who needs it !! >

Well if we're really going to go OT, Unreal 2 is the perfect example of your point. Fab visuals, utterly boring to play. TOCA race driver, fab visuals, tragic steering, unplayable. I could go on...

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> > Exactly. Seems like the GT series brings out the greatest hyperbole on > > earth. :) Most popular has never equaled BEST. > > Here we go again.... > > Hehe ;-) > > Although I am a huge PC/Papy sim fan, they haven't ever made anything > that felt as close to actually driving a car as GT3 feels. The physics > in GT3, while not accurately simulating the wind resistance of the guy > waving the chequered flag, do feel, er, *right*. The cars feel (and > look) like they are actually driving on tarmac. It's something I > really can't describe very well, but nothing else really comes close > to that sensation. I'd say that LFS is progressing very nicely in that > department, though. > > I'm not saying that GT3 is more realistic than Papy stuff, just that > the cars feel connected to the road in exactly the same way as real > cars do, and exactly the same way that GPL/NR2003 cars don't. Oh yeah, > and nobody really gives a **** about Nascar. <pulls on concrete > overcoat, hehe> > > By the way, you can't connect to the PS2 online thing over here with a > 56k connection, it's broadband only.

I share your opinion of the driving model - it's great. It feels "right" and that's all that matters to me (although being able to lock the brakes would make it excellent). Unfortunately, that's ALL it has - a DRIVING model. It fails as a racing game which is what I crave. I want 20 cars and decent AI - GT3 offers neither. Frankly, I like the driving model of GT3 more than GTR 2002 which I find too twitchy for my ability. I'd be much happier with GT3 handling/physics and GTR2002 AI (although not great either) and a full field of cars. We agree on physics/feel (A-) and disagree on overall value of the game (C+) since I put much more weight on racing experience and give GT3 an "F" as a racing game. BTW, PS2 is 56k or BB in the US which puts it at a distinct disadvantage to the very well executed BB only Xbox. -- Joe M.

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Although I am a huge PC/Papy sim fan, they haven't ever made anything > that felt as close to actually driving a car as GT3 feels. > I'm not saying that GT3 is more realistic than Papy stuff, just that > the cars feel connected to the road in exactly the same way as real > cars do, and exactly the same way that GPL/NR2003 cars don't. I don't see how someone that has played both GT3 and GPL/NR2003 can actually believe that. Kyle

"Kyle Roberts" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<9bCva.10238$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Although I am a huge PC/Papy sim fan, they haven't ever made anything > > that felt as close to actually driving a car as GT3 feels. > > I'm not saying that GT3 is more realistic than Papy stuff, just that > > the cars feel connected to the road in exactly the same way as real > > cars do, and exactly the same way that GPL/NR2003 cars don't. > > I don't see how someone that has played both GT3 and GPL/NR2003 can actually > believe that. > > Kyle

I don't see how someone that has played both GT3 and GPL/NR2003 can actually *not* believe that. GPL is skidpan racing. Yes, techniques that you use in real life are useful in the game, but you have to 'learn' what the car is going to do in the sim. There has never been a person who grabbed hold of GPL and managed to complete their first lap, however slowly. Just look at the intro video, you see the cars in real life sliding around, but its a nice, progressive slide. In the game, it doesn't replicate it at all well. I have never raced on an oval so I can't tell you what a car feels like on that rather unique type of racetrack, but I am judging NR2003 on the road courses. It's a huge amount better than GPL in the tyre model department - it feels a lot more clued in to the road, a lot more controllable at about 95% of the limit, but still a bit wrong. LFS is better than both of them *in this department*. So is GT3. In both of these, you can head into a corner a bit too quick, and you can feel it, control it, without thinking about what you are doing (unless you never raced in real life). You run wide, you lose time, but that's what happens in real life too. Get on the power a bit too quick, the wheels start to spin, but you can feel it and control it. Okay, let me put it another way. The pavement-tyre interface in NR2003 is undoubtedly more realistic than LFS/GT3, but LFS and GT3 give a lot more information about what is happening at the contact patch to the driver. Thus, they *feel* better to drive. I'm not saying GT3 is better overall - the AI sucks, the collisions are awful (but we're proper sim racers, we don't crash, right?), just if you go out in your little 1.1 Fiesta and push into a corner a little quick, you'd realise that LFS and GT3 are better than Papy.

[email hidden] (Nick) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > "Kyle Roberts" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<9bCva.10238$[email hidden]>... > I'm not saying GT3 is better overall - the AI sucks, the collisions > are awful (but we're proper sim racers, we don't crash, right?), just > if you go out in your little 1.1 Fiesta and push into a corner a > little quick, you'd realise that LFS and GT3 are better than Papy. Apples to oranges. I get no feel from any of the GT games to that level. Granted I've not played for a long time but used to put in some all-night split screen multiplayer sessions in and IIRC it was a drifty game. You could drift away all night and had to in order to be competitive. I don't think I could do that in a real TVR, for example. The GTis in LFS, though, is a different matter. Going in hot and running wide, power on understeer, all that felt just as I remember it in my Ibiza GTi... As I've not driven a '67 era F1 car or Cup car I've got no experience to judge, but on watching TV, in car footage, car attidute on track, etc, I'd say they *look* to handle similarly. WRT feel, Papy titles have always worked for me in that respect. I always feel like the virtual car is doing what I want it to do given the inputs I provide. Regards, Mark

Forgive me if I'm on the wrong track, mate, but are you Jason Harrison, of RMIT circa 1991? Mabster In article <[email hidden]>, "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>"shpankey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:ymHsa.10914$[email hidden]... >> >http://forum.granturismo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78431&perpage=40&pag >enumber=1 >> >> Is that for real!?!?!?!?!?! >> > >Well I would have thought the R34 GTR would be well >ahead of the 350z on the track, but who knows. > >They are damn nice shots though - give it the physics and >AI of GTR2002 and they might have a winner :) > >iksteh >(back to sliding the 996 around indy)

-- |\/| /|_|_ \ The .sig wears a ring of polymorph! -more- | |/\| |/ \ The .login hits! The .cshrc bites! _______________________\___________________________________________ STI: The Search for \ mailto:mhamilton@NOSPAM!qafmeats.com.au Terrestrial Intelligence \ http://www.madprops.org

My ears are burning! :). I bought the PS2 version of F355. There are some improvements, such as the longer replays, but in analog steering the wheel most definitely has a bad dead spot in the middle. Since 'feel' is everything in a game like this, this was disappointing. However, it's largely like its Dreamcast cousin. Still a great sim, but they could have done better with the control :( Randy [email hidden] (Dave) wrote in message news:<OVXua.153347$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> In article <NOLua.123783$[email hidden]>, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >I believe Randy Magruder, of www.digitalsports.com, loved Ferrari 355 > >Challenge. > > At least the DC version. Don't know if he was as enthused about > the PS2 version. Which is essentially a rehash and apparently > doesn't take advantage of the PS2's extra power. (I have the DC > version, but never bothered getting the PS2 version due to the > above).

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Randy Magruder) wrote: >My ears are burning! :). Where are you writing these days? As to GT4, there are plenty of previews after E3. See gamerankings.com and follow the links. Supposedly 500+ cars, including classics, *real* tracks (please!!), "improved AI" (but some mention of more "catchup" AI which I do *not* consider an improvement), improved physics, graphics, more realistic lap times. No indication that they'll let you disable the ABS. Heck, just the same with real tracks and lots more interesting cars and they had me hooked.

The main improvement is that GT4 has been designed from the ground up for online play. "Dave" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:0DUAa.57286$[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>,[email hidden] (Randy Magruder) wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >My ears are burning! :). > > Where are you writing these days? > > As to GT4, there are plenty of previews after E3. See > gamerankings.com and follow the links. Supposedly 500+ cars, > including classics, *real* tracks (please!!), "improved AI" (but > some mention of more "catchup" AI which I do *not* consider an > improvement), improved physics, graphics, more realistic lap > times. No indication that they'll let you disable the ABS. Heck, > just the same with real tracks and lots more interesting cars and > they had me hooked.