Gran Turismo 4 Import Review !

[Rodster]

http://www.gamepro.com/sony/ps2/games/p ... 1348.shtml

When the first Gran Turismo was released on the PlayStation, people were in awe; they saw top-notch graphics and driving physics worthy of the phrase "ultimate driving simulator." After three installments however, the coolness of its physics has mostly worn thin, and the luster on its cars grown a bit dull.

Gran Turismo mode remains largely unchanged, and still (unfortunately) has those excruciating license tests. Although they're pretty easy to finish if you're a Gran Turismo veteran, they're quite a hassle to go through. Load times between each test are a lot longer, and you now need to pass 16 different tests to get each license (there's four of them). Developers in the future may want to consider making the tests optional, because unless you're one of those fanatics that strive to get all golds (since that opens some of the best cars), it's more dull than a morning commute through rush hour traffic.

GT 4 falls short in other areas of gameplay mechanics, however--especially with its non-existent damage modeling and predictably robotic AI. The AI seems to have undergone absolutely no change--don't expect any surprises. And without damage simulation, this game is nowhere close to real. Part of the exhilaration in racing in real life comes from pushing your car to the edge, walking the fine line between quick cuts and devastating crashes. Especially in the insanely chaotic world of Rally Racing, making it out in one piece is half the battle. Although there's an option to turn on speed penalties for hard collisions, it is not a compelling, nor realistic, compromise.

Needs Wetsanding:
Graphics has been one of the highlights of the Gran Turismo franchise, and they still shine, albeit not as brilliantly as before. Each of the stages brought over from GT 3 have been noticeably revamped--if you weren't familiar with the layout you'd think Deep Forest was a completely new level. Reflections have been vastly improved, with the pavement and cars giving off a more realistic reflection of lights.

Will Gran Turismo 4 be worth the wait when it hits stateside? For those who expect a tune up and slight boost, yes. For people who want a redefining of the wheel, no. Polyphony Digital may have created the ultimate driving experience, but not an ultimate racing simulator.

[laurenskye]

It's what I expected. I hold hope for MS to come through,

[pk500]

I'm more stunned that Gamepro actually told the truth about a game and ripped one of the sacred-cow franchises of gaming than I am about the preview.

Did any of us expect anything upgraded from GT 3 other than polished graphics?

Of course not. And the lemmings still will line up to buy GT 4 like it's the greatest racing game ever created.

Take care,
PK

[Boom]

I'll HDLoader it if it's compatible.

[vinny-b]

well, Gran Turismo is the greatest racing game of all-time. If you don't believe me, ask the lemmings.


not suprised. Except for Gamepro coming correct.

from the looks of a couple screens (via gamespot), GT4 appears to now offer a camera view which shows the hood (apparently is in the japan version but was not in prolouge). Confirmation? Will admit, despite what we all know about GT to be true, i was set to purchase GT4, solely for the eye-candy. However, the more i read on Forza, the more GT4 looks like a one-month gamefly.

btw: i appreciate the 70 variations of skylines etc. yet no current Nissan Maxima. No Toyota Solara, Nissan Altima, Infinity G35 coupe or pre 2003 Honda Accord coupe (the new ones are ugly). Licensing issues or oversights? Good work, Poly.

[Murph]

I might have been able to overlook all of the above if there was an online mode.

It doesn't have one, therefore, I will not overlook them.

[pk500]

Gran Turismo is becoming the Tomb Raider of driving franchises. Sony will milk it until the teet bears no more, making minimal improvements while the sucklings -- or is that suckers? -- of the world head to the dairy bar to suck each new installment dry.

Take care,
PK

[Dave]

I was in a GameStop yesterday picking up a few used games, and overheard people talking about GT4. The guy working claimed all the delays were to get an online mode in the game. Outside of that, he was fairly non-fanboyish saying that he's not sure what they changed outside of more cars and tracks. The customer mentioned the same thing and acted fairly uninterested, despite playing GT3 nonstop.

Maybe the public is catching on, was it the 4th Tomb Raider that started the slide downward?

Chalk me up as another person amazed by LamePro's opinion on this one. They must have found out SCEA is spending more ad money at EGM for GT4.

[wco81]

Minimal improvements?

This game has been in development how long?

New engine isn't it?

May not turn out to be everyone's cup of tea but they've poured a ton of man hours into it.

[Boom]

wco,
You're just a lemming

[pk500]

Minimal improvements?

More cars, tracks and graphics. No apparent upgrade of AI or addition of damage model. No online mode. So yes, when you look at what really counts in a racing game, I would call those minimal improvements.

This game has been in development how long?

Too long for a game without online racing, a damage model or proper racing AI.

New engine isn't it?

Graphics engine? Probably. But there's still the same drone AI and no damage model. So if it's a new gameplay engine, it's still lacking.

May not turn out to be everyone's cup of tea but they've poured a ton of man hours into it.

So that automatically makes it a classic? I'm sure many man hours were put into the filming of "Ishtar," too.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

First of all, I've never bought a GT game and I probably won't get this one until it's online, if then. Just not into cars that much and not interested in doing all those license tests.

But this is a complete rewrite. "Minimal improvements" makes it sound like they made minor adjustments to existing code rather than do a complete rewrite from the ground up.

Yeah the game isn't what you wanted to be so lets denigrate the work. Is it even a racing game in the traditional sense? Are there really race tracks at those real-life locations they modeled into the game? It always looked like GT was more about collecting cars and watching replays more than anything else. And that formula has satisified legions. Maybe there just isn't as big of a market for pure racing games. Guess there are more lemmings in the world than racing purists.

As for damage model, I don't get the fascination with seeing damage. IRL, anything more than cosmetic damage and you should not be able to continue like you would in Burnout. The PD guy said they would look into damage when they could do proper physics. Specifically the ability to render the underside of cars (I don't quite understand why this part would be more difficult than rendering other aspects of crashes).

Again, this isn't my kind of game but I appreciate the kind of work they've done and the goals they aim for. The GT series probably get budgets and schedules which few games have. Even if they don't work on changing the AI to PK's exacting standards or putting in crash damage, they do have some lofty design targets, such as trying to wring more performance from limited hardware and putting in more content (the detailed tracks) than most games. I also got the sense that they delayed the online because they want more than a simple online mode. PD referred to needing time for "infrastructure" improvements.

Now maybe they fall short of the goals they set for themselves. But if the game fails aesthetically, it won't be because it didn't implement the features or changes that some crank wanted.

[pk500]

First of all, I've never bought a GT game and I probably won't get this one until it's online, if then. Just not into cars that much and not interested in doing all those license tests.

Credibility about your opinions regarding the GT series and GT4, exit stage left. Thanks for the audition.

Seriously, how am I supposed to take anything you write regarding the GT series and GT 4 seriously if you've never even owned any of the games? Have you even rented them for more than three nights?

I have played the piss out of all three -- easily 50+ hours in each, probably closer to 100+ in the original -- and others are in the same ship as me.

But this is a complete rewrite.

How the hell do you know? Have you played the GT 4 demo? Did you even own any of the first three games?

Yeah the game isn't what you wanted to be so lets denigrate the work.

Last time I checked, this forum was known for its critical evaluation of games. Has that changed? Is this now a lovefest, like Gamepro before its shocking, apparently honest preview of GT4?

As I said before, tons of time and effort was put into "Ishtar," yet it was panned by critics and filmgoers as one of the worst films ever. The videogame industry likes to say that it raked in more jack last year than the film industry, so why can't games be held to the same scrutiny as films?

Is it even a racing game in the traditional sense? Are there really race tracks at those real-life locations they modeled into the game? It always looked like GT was more about collecting cars and watching replays more than anything else. And that formula has satisified legions. Maybe there just isn't as big of a market for pure racing games. Guess there are more lemmings in the world than racing purists.

Gran Turismo has marketed itself since the beginning as the "Real Driving Simulator." That indicates to me that it's trying to be a realistic racing, or at least driving, game. I don't think Polyphony considers the GT series to be a car-collecting game with replays, even though reality indicates that's a pretty apt description.

As for damage model, I don't get the fascination with seeing damage. IRL, anything more than cosmetic damage and you should not be able to continue like you would in Burnout. The PD guy said they would look into damage when they could do proper physics. Specifically the ability to render the underside of cars (I don't quite understand why this part would be more difficult than rendering other aspects of crashes).

Again, GT has been marketed as the "Real Driving Simulator." In real driving, when you hit something, the car is damaged, and that damage affects performance. If you were to stuff a Dodge Viper into a concrete highway barrier, it would be damaged and probably have its steering and alignment thrown out of whack, at the least.

So why should we all give a pass to the "Real Driving Simulator" if it doesn't simulate the characteristics of real driving, especially the results of poor driving?

Again, this isn't my kind of game but I appreciate the kind of work they've done and the goals they aim for. The GT series probably get budgets and schedules which few games have.

Agree. Which makes the lack of damage and drone-like AI even more inexcusable. A game called the "Real Driving Simulator" with this kind of budget and timetable should deliver a truly real simulation of driving. GT NEVER has.

I also got the sense that they delayed the online because they want more than a simple online mode. PD referred to needing time for "infrastructure" improvements.

Crock of sh*t. Total. Moto GP and Moto GP 2, TOCA 2 and Project Gotham Racing 2 had incredibly simple and effective online interfaces on Xbox Live. So all of this talk about "infrastructure improvements" is horsesh*t.

Now maybe they fall short of the goals they set for themselves. But if the game fails aesthetically, it won't be because it didn't implement the features or changes that some crank wanted.

How about implementing basic racing features -- such as dynamic AI and a damage model that affects performance -- that already are available in other racing games? Especially from the so-called industry leader and "Real Driving Simulator?"

Funny, if you rip a feature or features omitted or underdeveloped in a game genre that you adore, it's considered valid criticism. If someone else criticizes a game, especially a game by your beloved Sony, in a genre you don't care about, that person is a crank.

You're adding hypocrisy to your rampant megalomania. Congrats -- that's one impressive repertoire you're building.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

You're accusing somebody else of meglomania?

Yes I've rented the games for more than 3 nights.

You chide marketing hype for every game in existence but you seem to take "Real Driving Simulator" to heart.

Does that come from the designers themselves or the marketing people?

Maybe when they add the online features, everyone including me will go "they delayed it for that?" Or maybe they aim to provide more that just basic connections between a few consoles. Given how ambitious they've been (all for "minimal improvements"), it would be surprising.

My beloved Sony? I thought GT was made by Polyphony Digital. But nice that you trotted out the "you're a fanboy" card.

I didn't say the game was going to be beyond reproach or criticism. Just that the lack of a "dynamic AI" (speaking of marketing hype) and damage doesn't automatically relegate the game to "minimal improvements."

Just because you think these things are important doesn't mean they are. These games never had damage modeling and yet they've probably outsold all those games with "dynamic AI" and damage modeling combined. Most people realize these are games and have certain constraints and they've accepted them.

But if you want to wage your lonely, purist campaign, be my guest. Now, who's the meglomaniac again?

[Zeppo]

First of all, I've never bought a GT game and I probably won't get this one The GT series probably get budgets and schedules which few games have. Even if they don't work on changing the AI to PK's exacting standards or putting in crash damage, they do have some lofty design targets, such as trying to wring more performance from limited hardware and putting in more content (the detailed tracks) than most games.

You see, this has been the crux of the problem with GT from the beginning, and this 'up to PK's exacting standards' quip only demonstrates that you fail to appreciate this problem.

The opponents in GT have always run on rails, never veering from the ideal line. They make no adjustments for any reason, not to try to pass, not to keep you from passing. They never make mistakes. They just drive the ideal line like a train on tracks, running into you if you are in the way. Expecting something better is not a case of having too high a standard for opponent driving AI, it's having a standard at all.

The damage situation is such that one inevitably uses the opponent cars as guardrails in order to carry more speed through the turns and pass them. This is an unavoidable tactic for any but the most highly disciplined individual.

The point is, the central concept of the game (racing) is essentially broken because of these two major design decisions. Those of us who have enjoyed this series in the past have been hoping since the very first one that they would fix 2 things to make the game perfect: opponent AI and damage. They need to make the AI into AI that at least attempts to make you feel you are competing against other imperfect drivers who are aware of their surroundings (or at least put the game online so one can race against other humans). And any serious driving simulator must have damage, and not cosmetic damage, like you would see in an arcade driving game like burnout or an action game like mercenaries or GTA, but some sort of performance-affecting damage. The GamePro writer states it very well when he talks about 'walking the fine line etc. etc.' as to the importance of a damage model to a racing/driving game. It's not that the damage model needs to be perfect, it's that there needs to be something there at all.

Now, the graphics are surely better, there are a lot of japanese cars in the game, and I'm sure the soundtrack is expansive. But in the areas where it really counts for most of us who have played these games a lot, not only did they not improve much, they didn't even attempt to improve at all. To me it's very analogous to the whole 'crib' type of thing in the sports games. The crib surely takes a lot less work than the kind of graphics magic the polyphany guys have done, but I think they are essentially the same insofar as their relevance to gameplay. The focus of those types of features is on the flash of the package; I would want the focus of all the hard work to be on the substance of the gameplay.

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that if this game were online, I would be much more likely to get it than I am now. There's nothing about this game that will draw me to purchase it. At this stage, the GT formula has worn exceedingly thin. When I look at this product, I see endless license tests and slow races in slow cars for a long, long time. And the pattern of earning money to get upgrades to make your car outclass the opposition is tired and old, too. The matchbox car aspect is the only thing left, really, and again, it is shaping up to be more of the same in terms of the types of cars in the game, if not right down to the specific models.

[pk500]

You're accusing somebody else of meglomania?

Yes, you and Kaz. If you're pointing the finger at me, I've said the magic three words in here numerous times that never have been uttered by either you or Kaz: I was wrong.

My beloved Sony? I thought GT was made by Polyphony Digital. But nice that you trotted out the "you're a fanboy" card.

Sony owns Polyphony. And admit it: You are one of the staunchest defenders of the PS2 in here.

I didn't say the game was going to be beyond reproach or criticism. Just that the lack of a "dynamic AI" (speaking of marketing hype) and damage doesn't automatically relegate the game to "minimal improvements."

Well, then what is the evidence of the massive rework? Of the new game engine? We've had hands-on previews saying there's no damage model and the same drone-like AI. So please spill evidence of the all-new game engine. I'm all eyes.

Just because you think these things are important doesn't mean they are. These games never had damage modeling and yet they've probably outsold all those games with "dynamic AI" and damage modeling combined. Most people realize these are games and have certain constraints and they've accepted them.

Fine. Then don't pimp the game as the ultimate driving simulator. Pimp it as a car-collecting game. I've read interviews with Polyphony for the past GT games, and it's obvious that they have exacting attention to detail. Then why can't they use that to create a damage model and realistic racing AI? Isn't that part of the detail of the complete driving experience, especially from a developer that shows such exacting attention to detail?

I wouldn't be this stringent with Namco and Ridge Racer or EA and Need for Speed. But GT has undeservedly been granted the title of the ultimate racing sim for consoles by both gamers and the gaming media, and it's way off base. And Polyphony is resting on those laurels by omitting key components of the driving and racing experience.

But if you want to wage your lonely, purist campaign, be my guest. Now, who's the meglomaniac again?

I don't think it's lonely. Read the Racing Forum at OS. See others with similar opinions as me in here.

I don't think I need to remind you who the megalomaniacs are in here. Read the first line of this post, for remedial purposes.

If PD creates a game with online racing, a functional damage model and smart AI, like Codemasters did with TOCA 2, then I'll be the first to tip my cap to them and say something not in your lexicon: <b> I was wrong.</b>

Take care,
PK

[Dave]

Good post, Zep, a lot of similar thoughts for me.

GT1 blew me away, totally caught me by surprise. I hadn't played a game that made it so much fun to push so many different cars to their limits.

GT2 had more cars and tracks, good enough for me.

Had to get GT3 for the much-improved graphics. However, I ended up not playing the game as much as the previous two, mainly due to the things Zep mentioned--too many slow races in slow cars. Also, once you got the fast cars, it was impossible NOT to win without a major screw up.

I remember playing GT1 in the dorms as a freshman, and there was one kid who couldn't turn a fast lap by himself. If he was close though, he had perfected the "bash and run" technique. If this game were online, it would be full of people doing that since there is no penalty for doing so.

Games like TOCA (and hopefully Forza) show what can be done within a realistic racing game. Just think if the Codies could have the time and budget of the Polyphony crew.

[wco81]

Now, the graphics are surely better, there are a lot of japanese cars in the game, and I'm sure the soundtrack is expansive. But in the areas where it really counts for most of us who have played these games a lot, not only did they not improve much, they didn't even attempt to improve at all. To me it's very analogous to the whole 'crib' type of thing in the sports games. The crib surely takes a lot less work than the kind of graphics magic the polyphany guys have done, but I think they are essentially the same insofar as their relevance to gameplay. The focus of those types of features is on the flash of the package; I would want the focus of all the hard work to be on the substance of the gameplay.

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that if this game were online, I would be much more likely to get it than I am now. There's nothing about this game that will draw me to purchase it. At this stage, the GT formula has worn exceedingly thin. When I look at this product, I see endless license tests and slow races in slow cars for a long, long time. And the pattern of earning money to get upgrades to make your car outclass the opposition is tired and old, too. The matchbox car aspect is the only thing left, really, and again, it is shaping up to be more of the same in terms of the types of cars in the game, if not right down to the specific models.

We'll see if the formula is thin.

Are the real-life locations in the game based on actual racing courses? I still don't know that GT has pretended to be a hardcore racing game. Because those small Japanese subcompacts they start you out with doesn't really scream racing to me.

My point is the game may not even have addressed the areas important to the hardcore racing fans. But it's more ambitious in scope than most other games in its genre. It's just that they emphasize graphics, number of cars and detailed tracks. There is speculation that they've spent maybe $80 million on this particular game. They apparently sent staff all over the world to scout these locations.

So maybe they didn't spend money on the right things for some people. Instead, they spent it on mapping the locations, among other things. Does this constitute not improving the game substantively? Does this mean they rested on their laurels and put out a product undeserving of appreciation for its achievement or the amount of work put into it?

[pk500]

So maybe they didn't spend money on the right things for some people. Instead, they spent it on mapping the locations, among other things. Does this constitute not improving the game substantively? Does this mean they rested on their laurels and put out a product undeserving of appreciation for its achievement or the amount of work put into it?

WCO:

In all sincerity, honestly, you're missing Zeppo's point. A damage model and realistic AI are not optional gameplay features for a realistic racing game -- they should be in there.

Yet Gran Turismo hasn't had either for its first three installments, and it apparently won't have them for its fourth.

Let's try this analogy. Let's say a popular football game -- Madden or ESPN NFL -- had a major gameplay flaw in its 2002 edition. Let's say pass interference never was called even if a defensive back mugged a receiver before the ball arrived, and onsides kicks weren't allowed.

You could still play a game of football with those blemishes, but it wouldn't be a realistic game of football.

Now, imagine those same blemishes that started in Madden 2002 or NFL 2K2 carried all the way to Madden 2005 and ESPN NFL 2K5 -- through the next three editions of the game. But by the time both EA and Sega reached their 2005 products, the graphics were considerably improved, new fields and cribs and other modes were added, but the pass interference and no onsides kicks flaws were still present in the game.

Would you still praise EA and Sega for their exhaustive work, or would you rip them for allowing game-diminishing flaws or omissions to remain in the product for four consecutive cycles even if the games sold quite well, which is the case for the GT series?

I honestly think you don't hold racing games to the same standards as you do other genres. There are some in here -- Zeppo, Dave, Kruza, DChaps and I to name a few -- who put racing games on a very high pedestal and demand the same kind of realism that most gamers do for team sports titles such as football and baseball.

Take care,
PK

[Dave]

GT has a mix of real and made-up race courses.

I would guess they have done nothing revolutionary in their mapping of the courses; I'll guess David Kaemmer, the Codies, EA, etc. did not have their budget. Maybe if their courses had changing conditions (like Forza is claiming), then it would be different.

And yes, you start with lame cars, but they have some serious racers in the game as well.

I can spend $80MM to design a race car, but that doesn't mean it'll go fast. And if Polyphony didn't spout all of this stuff about being such an in-depth realistic racer, then I'd be fine with this series becoming the Pokemon of racing games--gotta catch 'em all.

[wco81]

First of all, you need to look up the definition of meglomania if you think it means an inability to admit being wrong.

Secondly, Madden and the other football games have a bunch of flaws. Problems like the way the defensive backs behave and the lack of a physics model (or how often do you see DBs knock big RBs on their butts singlehandedly?).

But people will buy and play them because they know these are games and it's the closest most of them will get to pro football.

Similarly, I think the appeal of GT is that it lets them tinker with a bunch of cars in a way that just playing with toys or models of cars or maybe the restored StingRay doesn't let them. I don't think people who play GT imagine they're Senna or Petty the way they would if they were playing an F1 game or a NASCAR game.

And it lets them drive these cars in exotic locales, which also can't be underestimated. There used to be travel packages where people could rent supercars and drive them on the autobahn.

But maybe pretty graphics and a lot of Japanese cars will no longer sell and the forumula will have to change.

[pk500]

First of all, you need to look up the definition of meglomania if you think it means an inability to admit being wrong.

Megalomania means having feelings of grandeur and omnipotence. Since omnipotence means you have unlimited authority and influence, why would have you have to admit you're wrong? So my definition fits, thanks.

Secondly, Madden and the other football games have a bunch of flaws. Problems like the way the defensive backs behave and the lack of a physics model (or how often do you see DBs knock big RBs on their butts singlehandedly?). But people will buy and play them because they know these are games and it's the closest most of them will get to pro football.

Similarly, I think the appeal of GT is that it lets them tinker with a bunch of cars in a way that just playing with toys or models of cars or maybe the restored StingRay doesn't let them. I don't think people who play GT imagine they're Senna or Petty the way they would if they were playing an F1 game or a NASCAR game.

And it lets them drive these cars in exotic locales, which also can't be underestimated. There used to be travel packages where people could rent supercars and drive them on the autobahn.

But maybe pretty graphics and a lot of Japanese cars will no longer sell and the forumula will have to change.

Possibly. But I side 100 percent with Dave that I wouldn't be such a withering critic of the GT series since GT 3 if Polyphony didn't say how its goal was to develop such a realistic racing game. Bizarre Creations never said that was its intent with MSR, PGR or PGR 2, so the lack of a realistic damage model and drone-like AI can be excused in that game because it delivers what its developers set out to achieve -- an arcadish sim that's really fun to play and also delivers a very full-featured, fun online experience with PGR 2.

But Polyphony's developers have talked since the start of the franchise how their intent was to create a very realistic driving/racing game. Sorry, but a game without a realistic damage model and without realistic racing AI isn't a racing sim, and it sure as hell isn't realistic.

And your point about Madden and the ESPN NFL 2K being the closest gamers will get to real football on a console is 100 percent correct. But that analogy doesn't fly because there are racing/driving games, such as TOCA 2 and Colin McRae Rally 2005, that are more realistic than any of the GT games. So gamers can get closer to the real thing than the GT series.

Take care,
PK

[Zeppo]

So maybe they didn't spend money on the right things for some people. Instead, they spent it on mapping the locations, among other things. Does this constitute not improving the game substantively? Does this mean they rested on their laurels and put out a product undeserving of appreciation for its achievement or the amount of work put into it?

By no means did I intend to demean the hard work involved in or the quality of those items you mention above, not by any stretch. But, for my money, they are spending immense energy and resources in the support of a project that is flawed at the core. When the first GT arrived, those flaws were more than forgivable and for a lot of reasons, mostly because for the console gamer no racer/driving game had ever done anything quite like it with its massive library of cars and its realistic driving model. But so many years and however many installations later, the formula is too much the same for me personally to get excited about this title. (To compare, look at the kinds of things the Forza team are doing, the VIP-like 'drivatar,' integrated online and offline career mode, an innumerable number of leaderboards, the modeling of changing track conditions, etc.)

Perhaps a movie analogy is not too much of a stretch. I don't happen to think Terminator 3 is a very good movie. I think it's pretty silly and pretty formulaic. In fact, I think it ultimately degrades the legacy of the original Terminator, which I think is an outstanding film. However, from a technical point of view, say in the area of stunt work and on-set SPFX, Terminator 3 is one of the finest films ever made. Many of the stunts in that film are the pinacle of the craft. Does the fact I think the movie stinks demean the good hard work of the technical crew or the stuntmen? No way! I can appreciate both. But just because a movie has better stunts doesn't mean it's a better movie.

So, in a similar way, I think the work you mention is surely deserving of appreciation. But for me personally, that's not going to make it a better racing game than one that has more real-feeling AI opponents or a well put together damage system, or online racing. Another example: in some ways, the work done by the EA music licensing team is very impressive. To my mind however, EA trax has not the least bit to do with the quality of the game itself. Somewhere, to someone, having EA Trax is important, even if it's just to some record label exec. somewhere, but it must mean something to someone for it to be there. But to me, this gamer, it doesn't mean squat, you know what I mean?

[XXXIV]

But to me, this gamer, it doesn't mean squat, you know what I mean?

I know exactly what you mean...but then again I find you to be one of the best reads on the board.

P.S. I did have to reread it...

[lexbur]

Thanks to the crappy weather this weekend this lemming spent over two hours on the license test at Laguna with the Viper. After three years I was determined to get the gold on this test before GT4 comes out.

You need a 1'16.800 for a gold. After two hours on Saturday my best lap time was 1'16.834! I finally had enough for the day and went outside to shovel.

Then I popped the game in again on Sunday and after only about 20 minutes from out of nowhere I pulled off a 1'16.692!!! I almost sh*t my pants! I woke my dog up and gave him a high-five, he thinks I'm nuts!!!

It only took three years!!!

I don't have the patience to get all the golds, but I wanted to get that one on Laguna, since it's my favorite car on my favorite track, in any racing game.

I know there's a million things wrong with the GT series... no damage, crappy AI, no online racing, no significant improvements from one version to the next... BUT, one thing it does better than any racing game I've played is the actual driving model.

After playing both the XBox and PS2 versions of TOCA 2 for so long, I was surprised at how good it felt driving that Viper around Laguna. The game felt new again. The weight shifts, the slides, the importance of the pressure sensitive accelerating, and snapping turns off of those brake markers, no game does it better, IMO.

I'm obviously in the minority here, but I'm looking forward to GT4, even if it is more of the same.