What Racing Games Are Better than GT5?

MSTER232

Well, physics might not make an entire game, but they do definitely take up a wide majority of it. Shift 1 was nearly unplayable when in the chase view due to the steering lag connected to the physics of the game. Also, I couldn't give a 🤬 about engine sounds since most cars slapped with a titanium racing exhaust would sound bad in real life anyway.

Click to expand...

i never use titanium exhaust nor race cars in gt5, heck i dont even play anymore, all exhausts sound extremely bad in gt5, i've been checking out other games, arcade racers too and honestly even those sound better, even burnout paradise, i wish i coud steal some of the samples in that game and paste them on GT5, cars are generic in burnout but they sound convincing, they sound like engines, not like blenders, chainsaws and vaccums, there is a car in burnout that sounds exactly like the real life sauber mercedes c9, but on gt5 its one of the worst, its even insulting to make us believe that a mighty v8 would sound like that, for that alone i hate gt5

gamerdog6482

Al right, found it. It was an article in PlayStation magazine:

Click to expand...

Not sure what point you're trying to make there? That seems to be talking about still photo mode, not the racing/physics.

It's talking about the graphics, and how GT uses photorealism against NFS's photobelievablity.

Seems like he's trying to make a point about realism vs arcade or GT vs. games like Burnout and NFS was his point.

Zuku

Seems like he's trying to make a point about realism vs arcade or GT vs. games like Burnout and NFS was his point.

Click to expand...

Yes.

on the sound issue, about ferrari, isn't the accurate recreation of the signature sound part of the requirements to be able to use their license? (like the one that says ferrari f1cars can't race against other cars)
if so, how the heck did ferrari let PD use their cars with such poor samples?, especially the 330 p4, that one really sounds like my washing machine, i'm not joking,

i mean i know for a fact Ferrari itself has samples of their cars because they tune them to sound like ferraris therefore they need a lot of recording and hearing

Ferrari should force PD to recreate accurate sounds on their cars, after all its ferrari who decides if the license is granted or not and that should hopefully force PD to work and stop fooling around not doing anything

i would like to see a ferrari executive and tell him/her, "look this is how the 'real driving simulator' says you car sounds in real life" Ferrari would totally take the license away, i wonder if they are aware of this..

mikecustom

Ferrari should force PD to recreate accurate sounds on their cars, after all its ferrari who decides if the license is granted or not and that should hopefully force PD to work and stop fooling around not doing anything

Click to expand...

Ferrari can't force PD to do anything, just like Ford or TVR can't force PD to do anything. If PD loses the Ferrari license, all that really means is no more Ferrari DLC(Which we haven't had yet) and MAYBE no Ferrari in GT6, but that is and will be a HUGE question mark.

Zuku

Seems like he's trying to make a point about realism vs arcade or GT vs. games like Burnout and NFS was his point.

Click to expand...

The word 'arcade' gets bandied around far too often for my liking. "arcade physics", "arcade gamplay" and now it seems we've got "arcade graphics".

The graphics in those games are not 'arcade', what does that even mean? They are just created to suit the game, they have other things to work on in the games other than perfect graphics, it doesn't mean those graphics are 'arcade'. It's a silly term to describe the visual side of a game.

TomBrady

It's really hilarious that the same people who say GT5 is a grind, and is repetitive also enjoy crap arcade games like that.

Click to expand...

It's hilarious because it's true? I'm not seeing the joke.

TomBrady

There is, NOTHING, nothing more repetitive and boring than an arcade racer.

Click to expand...

I have to assume that you haven't played a good one then.

TomBrady

Every car feels the same, the AI is rubberband to the absolute max, and the racing is a joke.

Click to expand...

Every car feels the same? Yeah, you must have played some pretty awful arcade games, because even going back to NFS III each car handled very distinctly. Even the Ridge Racer titles don't play like that.


Oh, and by the way, the GT series had rubberband AI from GT1 throughout GT3.

TomBrady

All of those games are incredibly meaningless as it is, but Burnout goes even further than that. The one interesting thing about other arcade games like midnight club, or NFS, is they have a cool group of cars. BURNOUT HAS NO REAL CARS.

Click to expand...

MAYBE IF I TYPE IN ALL CAPS WHEN I SAY DUMB THINGS PEOPLE WILL AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME THEY ARE TRUE. I WONDER WHAT THIS MEANS FOR LIVE FOR SPEED AND RFACTOR, SINCE YOU APPARENTLY NEED LICENCED CARS FOR THE GAME TO BE FUN OR A SIM.

TomBrady

Arcade racing games are a joke. Your opinions are terrible.

Click to expand...

That's fantastic. Though I think this should have been in all caps too, to lend the ever important credibility to it.

TomBrady

Sims will always trump arcade games. Every car feels different, they use REAL cars and REAL tracks.

Click to expand...

Oh. Now real tracks are a requirement for a game to be fun? Guess GT1 is loathesome, then. And some PC titles like rFactor and Live For Speed (again). They don't have either things, so they must be scummy arcade titles.

TomBrady

Sims are just so much more meaningful, and because of that they're so much more fun and rewarding. Arcade games are a poor way of killing time, sims are a legitimate hobby

Click to expand...

If one type of video game is a poor way of killing time, a slightly different type of video game is no different. You are delusional if you think that you liking something more than someone else somehow lends credibility to you saying that what you like is a completely different level of entertainment.

I agree with you SimonK I'll gladly take my arcade physics, arcade graphics, and arcade gameplay though in a more enjoyable game. Then to sit here pretend I'm happy with this game that some labeled the best GT when it's clearly not even close it's good game, but once you began to see a lot of stuff it's not that great anymore.

SimonK

The word 'arcade' gets bandied around far too often for my liking. "arcade physics", "arcade gamplay" and now it seems we've got "arcade graphics".

The graphics in those games are not 'arcade', what does that even mean? They are just created to suit the game, they have other things to work on in the games other than perfect graphics, it doesn't mean those graphics are 'arcade'. It's a silly term to describe the visual side of a game.

Click to expand...

I agree. I heard arcade graphics the first time. What is arcade graphics?

Ok on topic. It depends what you prefer.

Do you like Arcade Racer?
Do you like Simulations?
Do you like console simulations like GT and Forza?
Do you care about the experience to feel like a race driver? Helmet Cam.

SimonK

GT5 is not a sim, not in the sense you're meaning. It's a game with realistic overtones, it's still a game and meant for fun. It's not like a Flight or Train simulator that aren't for fun, they are sims.

So yes, they're in the same genre. They're very different games no doubt about it, but they're both still racing games intended to be played for fun and enjoyment, not for someone to seriously sit and learn how to drive a car.

Click to expand...

If thats the case then GT Academy is a sham and a joke. If GT cant seriously help you drive or even show you have the ability to drive a real car then they should shut down GT Academy this very minute, as it's nothing more then an elaborate publicity stunt.

I have been a Flight Simulator fan since FS 98 and play it for both fun and the simulation. Why do both aspects need to be separate?

What made GT fun as opposed to diehard PC sims was not just "funner" physics. It was the large variety of races available in GT Mode as well as the numerous time trial challenges like the license tests, as well as little quirky details like the car wash and oil change.

Just because GT may not have the most realistic physics doesnt mean it doesnt strive to nor does it mean its not a simulation. There are many simulation racers out there, rFactor, iRacing, Project CARS, Sim Raceway, Race 07, Live for Speed, and many others. Obviously all of these titles do not simulate real driving the same, but rather at different levels of authenticity. So should the most realistic one be called a simulation and the rest not?

Earth

If thats the case then GT Academy is a sham and a joke. If GT cant seriously help you drive or even show you have the ability to drive a real car then they should shut down GT Academy this very minute, as it's nothing more then an elaborate publicity stunt.

Click to expand...

The GT Academy is a marketing exercise pure and simple, that doesn't make it a sham or a joke unless you saw more in it than that (and even then that remains your opinion).

This "arcade" racing game vs. "Sim" racing game is and always will be up to the players preference. I do not enjoy games like NFS and Burnout. I did enjoy them at one point in my life, they were alot of fun when I was younger. But now if I want to play a driving game the best way for me to enjoy that is with a wheel and pedals. GT5 is the best option for what I am looking for in consoles.


If Midnight Club and Split/Second is what some consider a racing game, then good for them. Crusin USA is also a racing game, I've probably put more hours into that than I have GT5. In my current mindset however, I don't think they should compared to one another. IMO, they are in two separate sub-categories within the racing genre.

Overall, Mario Kart 64 is still the best.

People really are forgetting something here... Let me explain.

Name one game that can teach you how to drive on a real track ?

Name one game that can make you actually feel the G forces while you play ?

Let's take a Logitech G27 for example, you have that, using it with GT5 and iRacing, for example, what will be the biggest difference in actual feel ? You guessed it, there is NO difference, why ? Because the wheel is exactly the same one no matter which game you use it with.

And how many degrees this wheel has ? 900 degrees.

At this point, does anyone know about a car that might turn more than just 900 degrees in real life ?

How about the sounds then ?

Show me how many speakers a real car has ?

Can a 7.1 DTS make the sound EXACTLY the same than you would hear the source outdoors in real life ?

So, in a nutshell, there is NO game or simulator that could possible feel like the real deal, or does someone disagree ?

Someone pointed out the Flight Simulator, is he saying that playing that game makes true pilots ? NO, didnt think so.

Scaff

Tyres deteriorate in GT5 as in they wear that is without a doubt true but I'm going to need to see you provide some proof that deformation is in anyway modelled in GT5. Certainly its a debate that has gone on for a long time with the GT series and to date not a single piece of proof of deformation being modelled has come forward.

From your post you seem to be directly linking deformation and wear and they are not the same at all.

Click to expand...

Yes I ment that GT5 doesnt have the tire deformation graphically coded, but the reaction is there. You wouldnt even know the FM4 has it IF the T10 wouldnt had ever drummed about it, trust me.

By the rights, when we tested these things with our group from AKK Motorsport, we didnt write it on to the internet, because it isnt what AKK is all about, more like "Off-topic" material, but we did the tests, I could arrenge a meeting between you and our team so you could discuss about it more.

Sam, senior member of AKK Motorsport

@ Sampyla20plus

This is why I'd rather have believablity as someone said think it was Gamerdog then the realism. Cause as the old saying(one I made up) if you want realism take your butt out there and drive or do whatever else you want.

For me video games is an escape of real life which means I'm hoping it's more fun than it tries to simulate being this photo-realistic game.

I feel as though once we reach the point of photo-realistic graphics people are going to hate games period. That's just my opinion.

Sampyla20plus

Yes I ment that GT5 doesnt have the tire deformation graphically coded, but the reaction is there. You wouldnt even know the FM4 has it IF the T10 wouldnt had ever drummed about it, trust me.

By the rights, when we tested these things with our group from AKK Motorsport, we didnt write it on to the internet, because it isnt what AKK is all about, more like "Off-topic" material, but we did the tests, I could arrenge a meeting between you and our team so you could discuss about it more.

Sam, senior member of AKK Motorsport

Click to expand...

To keep things on-topic my reply is (once again) here:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=7387568#post7387568

Zuku

@ Sampyla20plus

This is why I'd rather have believablity as someone said think it was Gamerdog then the realism. Cause as the old saying(one I made up) if you want realism take your butt out there and drive or do whatever else you want.

For me video games is an escape of real life which means I'm hoping it's more fun than it tries to simulate being this photo-realistic game.

I feel as though once we reach the point of photo-realistic graphics people are going to hate games period. That's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

That is absolute true, only way to have fully functional simulator, is your own car, no game can ever compete with that.

This is why I personally spend alot of days at tracks what we have in Finland, few trips to europe per year for the same reason.

generally speaking, if you havent ever been at the track, driving around, but you keep playing racing games instead, there is no way in hell for you to tell how a game "should" work if you dont have any real life experience about it, simple as that.

Sampyla20plus

So, in a nutshell, there is NO game or simulator that could possible feel like the real deal, or does someone disagree ?

Someone pointed out the Flight Simulator, is he saying that playing that game makes true pilots ? NO, didnt think so.

Click to expand...

Which almost makes the whole point of arguing which sim is more realistic pointless. With each GT title the physics are becoming more accurate and realistic, the same with Forza. iRacing was based off of 2003 NASCAR Racing Season code. I'm sure they've improved on it but the point is that its all a gradual improvement. GT5 has more realistic physics then GT4, and Im sure Forza 4 improved Forza 3's physics.

I dont get why GT gets so much hate and is called a faux simulator. Last time I checked the cars generally have realistic specifications and performance. The real tracks are accurate. Driving a front engine or rear engine car feels different, driving a Viper feels different from driving a Corvette. So how is it disqualified from being a Simulator? Because others do it better (but still FAR from perfection), usually on a much smaller scale? Not good enough IMO.

As for helping in real life, because of my experience with Flight Simulator I stand a much greater chance of landing a small plane in an emergency then someone off the streets because it taught me the basics. Initially I would be ahead of most in an attempt to get a pilot's license, but my experience using a simulator will only translate so much into the real world because of some of the factors you mentioned.

Its similar with GT. A GT Academy graduate will definitely be better suited at racing real cars then someone off the street, but because he came out on top of thousands of GT guys doesnt mean hes ready to take on Sebastian Vettel.

Simulation is a word and it is used to simulate or imitate something from the real world but that does not mean that it is going to be like the real deal 100%, because real life has an incredible amount of variables on every aspect that there is no hardware in the world that can handle that information or even imitate/simulate in real time.

BUT again a simulator is that and it is the more close that you can get to real life "sensation" or feeling in your hands.

How to play a simulator to make it even better or more "realistic" (not real)? Well you need something that emulates G Forces like those "chairs" that can move or something like F1 teams uses with proper and more close to real life variables to imitate the best that they can those feelings.

But again it will never be perfect so we can stop debating all this.

No Which game is more or which game is less a simulator?

Well in this case depends in which one of those has implemented the better variables and feelings into the whole package. FFB is the most important thing because you can feel (at least in your hands) how the car behaves on every moment in contact with the surface. And of course you can drive it wherever you want as happens in real life.

Then physics we can separate this in 2 maybe 3 but i am going to use 2:

-Environmental physics: here you can find G Forces generate from the car while you drive, Gravity force applied into the car ("natural" forces) , aerodynamics (this includes how the air interacts with the car and the flux generated by the car) and then the different type of surfaces (dirt, gravel, tarmac, etc), and weather variables/conditions. All this of course it is simulated but as much as we can have something close to it, it will be impossible to be 100% perfect. (again real life variables)

-Physics/structure from the car itself: here we have the variables from each independent car (weight, size, aerodynamics, engine variables -HP, etc-, suspension, weight distribution, add ons and so on,...type of tyres!)


Well, with all that said as you can see now we have tons of info to be implemented in one "simple" model. All that is just for one car.

The environmental physics works for every car but also it is going to have variables depending in how the car is and reacts to the environment at the same time. It works combined but changes while you change the car. Easy work don´t you think?...No, it is not.


Now more or less we can separate things from all this (maybe i miss something i know)and translate it to what GT5 has and what not and then we can talk about what it is wrong and what not or exaggerated.

Simulation personally and for people to really likes simulators is not just think that you are driving the best one because you feel like it is.

To me a real simulator is that one that has amazing FFB and tells you at every moment what is doing your car, in a way that, by your proper regular knowledge you feel it better, consistent and accurate. If this works "wrong" in the way that can be or feel "easy" or way over exaggerated or "difficult" means that something is wrong and variables are working like hell. A simple number or bad calculation could be a disaster to the whole simulation.

Other factor is a part of the car physics overall mixed with the environmental one. In some simulators the car feels heavy and in others the same car feels too light. For example in GT5 the cars feels heavy because "they" are hard to roll-over and that is something wrong with the game. In other games when cars feels too light the car roll-over even if you touch "the piano" slightly. But in that problem there are 2 or 3 things that are working bad: suspension, gravity applied into the car and lateral G forces (the one that it is there reacting but you can´t feel with your wheel).

Not having in consideration the overall physics, a simulator is when you are hours and hours making laps in a circuit to gain some seconds, using setups not only to go faster but to try to keep tyres fresh the most time possible just to find a good balance lap after lap so you can adapt your driving skills also to save some fuel or use the last breath of your tyres to make a lap more before enter pits.
That´s a simulator, hours and hours of suffer for the day that you race one guy hits you in the first lap and make you loose the whole week and you finish really pissed.


What we have in GT5 is a simulator but it is combined for the more casual gamer that likes to enter a game, tune their car to the max, learn a little how to do some stuff and win races.

Still the game has its problems and ones are several ones if you think about it as a proper simulator but it still is because it has (sometimes over exaggerated) all that i have mentioned before. And if you think in the amount of cars and variables that this game makes you feel on each car it is just amazing.

Not the best and i can say it by far, but as i said in my other comment is one of the most complete ones.

Earth

Which almost makes the whole point of arguing which sim is more realistic pointless. With each GT title the physics are becoming more accurate and realistic, the same with Forza. iRacing was based off of 2003 NASCAR Racing Season code. I'm sure they've improved on it but the point is that its all a gradual improvement. GT5 has more realistic physics then GT4, and Im sure Forza 4 improved Forza 3's physics.

I dont get why GT gets so much hate and is called a faux simulator. Last time I checked the cars generally have realistic specifications and performance. The real tracks are accurate. Driving a front engine or rear engine car feels different, driving a Viper feels different from driving a Corvette. So how is it disqualified from being a Simulator? Because others do it better (but still FAR from perfection), usually on a much smaller scale? Not good enough IMO.

As for helping in real life, because of my experience with Flight Simulator I stand a much greater chance of landing a small plane in an emergency then someone off the streets because it taught me the basics. Initially I would be ahead of most in an attempt to get a pilot's license, but my experience using a simulator will only translate so much into the real world because of some of the factors you mentioned.

Its similar with GT. A GT Academy graduate will definitely be better suited at racing real cars then someone off the street, but because he came out on top of thousands of GT guys doesnt mean hes ready to take on Sebastian Vettel.

Click to expand...

You got the point, about the Flight Simulator thing, and the whole realism factor.

Few years I spend for iRacing and become guite a good in that I always returned for those "console rubbish arcade" games mainly because GT5 and FM4 does something that iRacing wasnt ever ment to do, huge selection of cars people has driven in real life at some point of their lives. Which seemes alot more suitable for me in the end, so I ended iRacing partnership during this Spring and focused on FM4 and GT5.

So far I know, the physical differences between the console vs PC "sims" is actually in the users head, ofcourse iRacing cars might have "more" coded features in it, but it sacrifices it with the amount of the cars.
Not to mention the fact there wasnt any car in iRacing I have ever driven on real life, so I cant honestly say did those cars "felt" more like the real deal or not. More similar with the console games, if having the proper wheelset, that is.

I think "better" is a subjective word, because in my opinion, the biggest factor in what makes a game good is whether you enjoy it. For example, I play Need for Speed on the PlayStation 2 because it's more arcade styled and gives me fun quickly, whereas GT5 gives me long-lasting enjoyment in the long run with online racing.

I will go on record to say I don't hate the GT series, but I feel like other racing games get a lot of flap for not being GT or Forza. Especially the arcade ones.

I've owned Midnight Club: LA in no way shape or form am I calling this a simulator or a sim type of game, but I do know there is a lot of things it does better than GT5 right now. Like the Premium interiors I like the view of them in MC:LA vs. GT5 cause you're able to see most of it, and not that small portion GT5 lets you see.

Just like NFS Hot Pursuit(2010) the sense of speed in that game for me was unreal that's why I liked it so much. It's not a realistic game, but it did do some things right to at least let me have a lot of fun.

I still say GT5 biggest downfall was implementing too much at one time. With WRC, Nascar, Super GT, Online, Premiums, Weather, Time, Course Creator, Seasonals, etc.

Most of the features feel half-assed(sorry for the lang), but unlike the changes that happened between GT3 to GT4. I think PD put too much on their plate if they had just given us career mode for single player everyone wanted, Weather and Time on all tracks, and Newer Cars(I think I could have held on for GT6 before they gave us premium cars). I would have been a lot happier then I am right now with the game.

Zuku

I will go on record to say I don't hate the GT series, but I feel like other racing games get a lot of flap for not being GT or Forza. Especially the arcade ones.

I've owned Midnight Club: LA in no way shape or form am I calling this a simulator or a sim type of game, but I do know there is a lot of things it does better than GT5 right now. Like the Premium interiors I like the view of them in MC:LA vs. GT5 cause you're able to see most of it, and not that small portion GT5 lets you see.

Just like NFS Hot Pursuit(2010) the sense of speed in that game for me was unreal that's why I liked it so much. It's not a realistic game, but it did do some things right to at least let me have a lot of fun.

I still say GT5 biggest downfall was implementing too much at one time. With WRC, Nascar, Super GT, Online, Premiums, Weather, Time, Course Creator, Seasonals, etc.

Most of the features feel half-assed(sorry for the lang), but unlike the changes that happened between GT3 to GT4. I think PD put too much on their plate if they had just given us career mode for single player everyone wanted, Weather and Time on all tracks, and Newer Cars(I think I could have held on for GT6 before they gave us premium cars). I would have been a lot happier then I am right now with the game.

Click to expand...

Let's similize, shall we? If we say gt1-4 was like a Skyline R31-4, obviously they are different, but the changes are incremental. That makes GT5 an R35, a whole new beast with the spirit of the original but with a different heart. The incremental changes are gone, and we are left with about 80 Skylines.

While GT5 is a different beast it's a beast with heart problems that clearly didn't have the heart of the originals in mind.

Zuku

While GT5 is a different beast it's a beast with heart problems that clearly didn't have the heart of the originals in mind.

Click to expand...

Would you say the R35 was loudly based on the R34? Would you say the same for GT5?

Okay let me make this clear you're using cars I'm not the person to talk to about cars.

I know of Nissan Skylines, but I don't care for the difference between a R34, R35, GT-R etc. Like I said when I first got back on the board earlier this month I'm more of a casual fan of the Gran Turismo series when I said that I really mean that.

You told me the R35 is like a different beast altogether with the heart of the original in mind.

Using that I'm telling you in my honest opinion GT5 is a beast with heart problems and when they made this it clearly didn't have the hearts of the original 4 games in mind.

Gt6

Gran turismo for ps1..Oh gooood times.