Do You Class GT5 Prologue as a Sim

[red7]

Even when GT is developed by a team of Japanese programmers and supporting staff on a Sony budget, slaving away in a Tokyo office for days at a time, and Live for Speed is programmed by one British bloke in his spare time? You're right, a lot of time and effort goes into a GT game, but I don't know why we should pity PD for it. It's their fault for wanting such a huge selection of cars -- I'd rather see a great GT with 200 cars than a mediocre one with 700.

Exactly, right. If the driving physics are lacking all you have between those 700 cars is the "look" of them which is great on the artistic side of things but leaves things a bit hollow. I don't care if live for speed has only a fraction of the cars because I can spend a whole session with the sim and only drive 1 or 2 cars. They're so deep. In gt5p i feel the experience is like skimming the surface.

 

[homeforsummer]

Even when GT is developed by a team of Japanese programmers and supporting staff on a Sony budget, slaving away in a Tokyo office for days at a time, and Live for Speed is programmed by one British bloke in his spare time? You're right, a lot of time and effort goes into a GT game, but I don't know why we should pity PD for it. It's their fault for wanting such a huge selection of cars -- I'd rather see a great GT with 200 cars than a mediocre one with 700.

I'm of the opinion that we will see a great GT, and it'll have hundreds of cars. Where was I pitying PD? I was simply responding to the fact people are acting like there's sod all effort put into developing a good sim. GT games have vastly, vastly more depth than LFS does.

You can tell LFS has been created by three blokes, because it has three blokes' works' worth of content. Very impressive physics, no doubt about that, but it is literally a sim - there's very little of a "game" aspect to it. Fair enough if you want some great, realistic online racing with others, but it's not really a game you can dip into. And at the end of the day, we are talking about a game.

I'm still happy to call GT5P a sim, and I'm equally happy to call it a good game.

Sorry, I can't stand to play a game with wrong physics, no matter how alluring the rest of the game is. That's why GT4 was so disappointing. If a game isn't realistic, it should at least be enjoyable. GT3 was great about that. GT4 was not.

Since when has GT had "wrong" physics? The physics have always been pretty good, and newer platforms have enabled them to improve with each version. I'm not quite sure I follow you with the GT3/GT4 comparison either - in my view GT4 was an improvement on GT3 with regard to physics, albeit a small one. And again in my opinion, more fun. Not least because it had a better selection of cars and tracks.

I think Live for Speed is the only game to truly recreate the feeling of driving a roadcar at high speed. But that's just me.

Having spent some time playing LFS (though nowhere near as much as I have playing GT) I'd agree that it's very good at recreating the feeling of driving, but not really significantly better than GT5P.

 

[eight6er]

Since when has GT had "wrong" physics? The physics have always been pretty good, and newer platforms have enabled them to improve with each version. I'm not quite sure I follow you with the GT3/GT4 comparison either - in my view GT4 was an improvement on GT3 with regard to physics, albeit a small one. And again in my opinion, more fun. Not least because it had a better selection of cars and tracks.


I agree with wolf here I think GT4 was a step backward in physics over GT3 and feel gt5p shares one of these faults at the moment too. GT4 was the first game in the series that I did not bother finishing and sold. Hopefully things will change.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'd love for someone to tell me how GT4 was a step back from GT3. I genuinely don't know what you're referring to. Also expanding on the GT5P point would be great 👍

 

[RedBaron]

I'd love for someone to tell me how GT4 was a step back from GT3. I genuinely don't know what you're referring to. Also expanding on the GT5P point would be great 👍

I don't agree with that too. There were bumps on ring and suspension reaction for them added and that was very good for GT4 as simulation. But in standard, car were wearing sports class tyres and not drifting at all! Only when you invented that with N grade tyres game became a real simulator, then you had it. But as a game, GT4 was really less motivating and enjoying in GT mode than GT3 was, despite all the 700 cars and 50 tracks.

 

[Zer0]

I'm sure PD believes GT is "real." Kazunori himself has said he never plays any other sims (if he did, GT would be a much, much better game, IMO), so of course he thinks his own creation is "real." Based on 6 years of driving experience, including a little track time, and all my knowledge of automotive mechanics and the physics of cornering, I would disagree.

Really do you think that playing other sims will give more experience than playing the real thing? because this is why Kaz don't play any other games.

If you speak about real experience I think Kaz has a lot and more varied experience than you to tell what is more real and what is not.

 

[Wolfe]

Where was I pitying PD? I was simply responding to the fact people are acting like there's sod all effort put into developing a good sim. GT games have vastly, vastly more depth than LFS does.

But that's just it -- as LFS shows, you only need one good programmer to work out an excellent physics engine. Not exactly low effort, but not an impossible task, either. PD could acheive the same level of realism with GT if they cared to.

The "depth" you're referring to is the product of hours upon hours of collecting data. Hard work, for sure, but not the makings of a great sim. Just the makings of a racing game with a lot of stuff in it.

Having spent some time playing LFS (though nowhere near as much as I have playing GT) I'd agree that it's very good at recreating the feeling of driving, but not really significantly better than GT5P.

The subtle bumps and dips of LFS's detailed suspension modelling can't be matched by any console sim, IMO. For all its improvements, GT5 felt just as floaty and disconnected as its predecessors when I tried it. Though that was in August, not with the latest update.

I'd love for someone to tell me how GT4 was a step back from GT3. I genuinely don't know what you're referring to.

Oversteer is extremely easy to avoid, too difficult to initiate, and too difficult to control. The game did improve upon GT3's floaty, grippy, friendly, mushy engine, refining it into something with a bit more bite...but it also killed all the fun.

Really do you think that playing other sims will give more experience than playing the real thing? because this is why Kaz don't play any other games.

If you speak about real experience I think Kaz has a lot and more varied experience than you to tell what is more real and what is not.

Someone could spend their entire life in a forest and still be unable to paint a photorealistic portrait of a tree. Kaz painted his own picture, said, "yep, that's it," and has never compared it to anything else. He literally has no motivation or benchmark by which to improve the franchise except for his own vision, which is nothing but a collection of opinions of one man.

The GT games may be fairly impressive, but until Kaz changes his attitude, they'll never be an objective pursuit of physics accuracy. They never have been.

 

[homeforsummer]

The "depth" you're referring to is the product of hours upon hours of collecting data. Hard work, for sure, but not the makings of a great sim. Just the makings of a racing game with a lot of stuff in it.

Partly true, but I'm not just referring to quantity with the term "depth". I'm also referring to the way the whole game is structured, the way the menus work, the graphical detail and consideration for the smallest details, the number of different classes and championships you can race in, the tuning options... there's obviously a "quantity" element to depth, but this shouldn't be seen as a bad thing.

Personally I think LFS is great fun to play, but essentially it's quite rudimentary and I've not been compelled to purchase the full S2. With the GT series, it's kept bringing me back.

For all its improvements, GT5 felt just as floaty and disconnected as its predecessors when I tried it. Though that was in August, not with the latest update.

It has improved since then, but I disagree that it feels floaty and disconnected. There is the occasional dodgy physics effect - such as landing after a jump, on Eiger for example, where the car just seems to thunk into the ground with a kind of weightless feeling and no real inertial effects. But for the most part, and when you keep your wheels pretty much on the tarmac, it's pretty impressive, and feels pretty realistic.

Oversteer is extremely easy to avoid, too difficult to initiate, and too difficult to control. The game did improve upon GT3's floaty, grippy, friendly, mushy engine, refining it into something with a bit more bite...but it also killed all the fun.

I do agree that GT4 has those failings, though they weren't as noticable at the time as they are now that GT5P is out, but to me it was a better game in every way than GT3 was, and more fun too.

 

[Wolfe]

Partly true, but I'm not just referring to quantity with the term "depth". I'm also referring to the way the whole game is structured, the way the menus work, the graphical detail and consideration for the smallest details, the number of different classes and championships you can race in, the tuning options... there's obviously a "quantity" element to depth, but this shouldn't be seen as a bad thing.

Personally I think LFS is great fun to play, but essentially it's quite rudimentary and I've not been compelled to purchase the full S2. With the GT series, it's kept bringing me back.

Live for Speed allows you to extensively customize your gaming experience, tweaking everything from HUD colors to the names of your AI opponents. You can even create a custom camera view. Anyone can create detailed skins for their car or helmet (pixel by pixel in a program like photoshop), and power users can change other graphics, including the driver's suit or the steering wheel (I once made a Logitech G25 skin for the wheel). Online you'll find dozens of servers, including a few "leagues" with their own point and license systems that run as custom scripts on their servers. Or you can try your hand at one of the drift servers, which also sometimes have custom scripts to award points for showy drifts.

The suspension of every car is modelled geometrically (which can be seen real-time in a 2D diagram in the tuning menu), the tires deform, flat spot, fill the tread with dirt, or blow out, and there's engine damage, clutch damage, and body damage. You can also fine tune nearly any element of the suspension, steering, tires, or transmission/drivetrain, using real units of measure instead of vague numbers.

LFS doesn't have as many tracks or cars as the GT games, but that doesn't mean it lacks depth. It just doesn't have a lot to offer to an offline player. It also just doesn't cut it when you want to drive a specific, real car, so I can understand why you stick to GT. I just happen to turn to Forza 2 or Enthusia instead, because I don't have a PS3.

I do agree that GT4 has those failings, though they weren't as noticable at the time as they are now that GT5P is out, but to me it was a better game in every way than GT3 was, and more fun too.

Funny thing about the flaws not being noticable at first -- I began playing Live for Speed two years before GT4 came out. Although I was the first to buy it at my EB, my excitement for the game quickly dissipated as I came to terms with the fact that the game simply will not allow me to have fun. I don't enjoy understeer, and I don't enjoy grip driving in a situation where mistakes are not only incredibly easy to avoid, but illogical and unrealistic. But I can see how people would enjoy the latter, especially given all the stuff GT4 has to offer. For me, the hundreds of cars and tracks are more like a poison apple, and I've learned my lesson after giving the game several second chances.


Now, to return to the topic, would I class GT5 as a sim? I would have to play the latest version to give a full answer, but even with the old one I played, I can tell PD will easily surpass Forza, and I consider Forza 2 an "entry-level sim." So my answer would be "yes." The question is whether PD can top Enthusia, or approach the detailed simulation of a PC sim.

 

[homeforsummer]

*Lots of stuff, edited for clarity*

LFS does offer lots of variables, and I've played around with some of them. I do find many of them are a bit... well, pointless, like being able to change the colour of the dials ("oh look, they're green! And the needle is red! wow!") but stuff like changing the car skins is a good feature - but then it's one that GT might counter if they introduce livery editors like has been hinted.

It just doesn't have a lot to offer to an offline player. It also just doesn't cut it when you want to drive a specific, real car, so I can understand why you stick to GT. I just happen to turn to Forza 2 or Enthusia instead, because I don't have a PS3.

I think your first sentence there is the crux of it for me. I'm sure, if I had a lot of time on my hands, and enough money for a G25, and a place to put it, then I'd probably buy a full licence for my copy of LFS and get much deeper into it, and do some online racing. But as it is, I have an analogue joypad and very little time for playing games of any sort.

I find GT5P close enough to real world physics to enjoy from that respect, whilst it's still a game that I can dip into, be it a time trial or an online race for ten minutes.

As for Enthusia, I've never played it but intend to buy it soon 👍

Now, to return to the topic, would I class GT5 as a sim? I would have to play the latest version to give a full answer, but even with the old one I played, I can tell PD will easily surpass Forza, and I consider Forza 2 an "entry-level sim." So my answer would be "yes." The question is whether PD can top Enthusia, or approach the detailed simulation of a PC sim.

To be fair, we haven't really been off topic, we've simply expanded on it You know already that I consider GT5P to be a sim, and I suspect GT5 itself will be even better in that respect.

I can answer your final (rhetorical) question by saying that I don't think even GT5 will be as realistic as LFS in terms of pure physics, but it'll be more than close enough to be very impressive in it's own right - plus it'll offer the sort of content that the majority of GT players crave - graphics, tracks, cars etc.

 

[Juice476]

If you take the jump at Eiger and then go watch the replay that will tell you everything you need to know about how "arcadey" the physics are. Until PD gets the ok to roll a car GT will never be as good as a PC sim. In LFS you feel like you are driving a car, In GT you feel like you are driving a box that understeers and has the hand of God pushing down on it the entire time.

 

[RedBaron]

If you take the jump at Eiger and then go watch the replay that will tell you everything you need to know about how "arcadey" the physics are. Until PD gets the ok to roll a car GT will never be as good as a PC sim. In LFS you feel like you are driving a car, In GT you feel like you are driving a box that understeers and has the hand of God pushing down on it the entire time.

Yes, the Eiger jump is PD's own deathtrap, because it exactly shows how flat the physical engine really is. So PD, get to basics and make the hell out of that Cell in our PS3's, it seems like you are just improving GT1 engine till these days. And that's not enough. And don't forget to do the same for all opponents, because they still are playing different game than player.

 

[Wolfe]

I find GT5P close enough to real world physics to enjoy from that respect, whilst it's still a game that I can dip into, be it a time trial or an online race for ten minutes.

Exactly what a Gran Turismo should be.

To be fair, we haven't really been off topic, we've simply expanded on it

I just wanted to end the GT4 vs GT3 topic as soon as possible.

I can answer your final (rhetorical) question by saying that I don't think even GT5 will be as realistic as LFS in terms of pure physics, but it'll be more than close enough to be very impressive in it's own right - plus it'll offer the sort of content that the majority of GT players crave - graphics, tracks, cars etc.

I think you're right.

 

[GT Pro]

GT5 in my opinion is most definitely a simulator. It actively reproduces the real driving experience with the majority of the Polyphony's effort going into proving the classic GT motto of the 'real driving simulator'. Unlike the soon-to-be defunct Need For Speed Series, Juiced, Midnight Club, Burnout etc. the game's major game play doesn't rely on customising cars, watching cutscenes or being chased by cops but depends solely on delivering the most accurate racing simulator necessary to keep the enthusiasts playing.

 

[RedBaron]

Yes, it is. But we are getting very finicky and we can't stand that GT physics engine is far beyond its graphics engine. And I think PS3 with Cell is capable of even better physics simulation than LFS is. And yes, for all sixteen cars.

 

[amar212]

I REALLY REALLY REALLY HATE this kind of debates. But, I'll jump in for one more time.

First this: there is no way on earth we'll ever get full-damage or full-release physics (car flipping, etc.) in GT series.

Then second: GT is a simulation, but it's simulation with restraints. They are implemented by purpose, with idea of having gameplay that will serve for both casual and hard-core players and it will be that way FOREVER.

Why?

Sales.

Look at all other racing games. How many copies have Simbin sold of GTR, GTR2 and Race combined? Same question for LFS, rFactor and iRacing. Combine all of them and MAYBE you'll come up to average sale of just one Gran Turismo game .

Gran Turismo is a perfect blend of playable simulation and pick-up-and-drive game, that have enough substance to satisfy both hard-core and casual public. Because of that it has sales, constant budget and can persist for more than a decade now in positive sales balance. NONE other racing game has that kind of results.

If the "gameplay model" of hard-core simulations (AKA PC simulations) would be commercial, than we would have millions and millions of people playing those games and it would become the genre-benchmark.

But - it is not that way. We can all be sorry because of it, but it is not the hard-core that is shaping the market - it is mainstream.

In my book, GT5's physics engine - restrained as it is - is still the best ever witnessed in video-gaming. And I'm speaking about the driving alone.

I can safely presume that full GT5 game will give us a same amount of surprise regarding full-simulation physics - if not even greater - than it was case with GT4 compared to GT3.

So, I have no problem with Gran Turismo's simulation physics. Judging from one year of online-experience of GT5, it is still too much "simulatonal" for 90% of players outthere.

Oh, yeah - and this too:

Really do you think that playing other sims will give more experience than playing the real thing? because this is why Kaz don't play any other games.
If you speak about real experience I think Kaz has a lot and more varied experience than you to tell what is more real and what is not.

Spot on.

 

[Leonidae]

I voted no, with a hint of mixed feelings. it's not a sim YET. can't adjust LSD, tyre width, anti rollbars.. no changing weather.. no damage.. can't shift te seat back and forth, no horn.. physics/graphics wise it is close, but no cookie yet. But soon..

 

[RUFin]

I think,longer you go from incar view,clutch,ABS 0,less simulation you get?Maybe wrong but thats how I see it.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Yes, the Eiger jump is PD's own deathtrap, because it exactly shows how flat the physical engine really is. So PD, get to basics and make the hell out of that Cell in our PS3's, it seems like you are just improving GT1 engine till these days. And that's not enough. And don't forget to do the same for all opponents, because they still are playing different game than player.

Wow, the physics from GT1 and 5: Prologue arent comparable at all.

 

[Kryz11]

200 cars vs 700!!!????!!!!
That is a good question.

200 cars with great customizable parts, decals, etc, maybe even damage
or
700 cars with very little custom parts, and damage not even till some patch withing first year of release..

200 would be good, Damage right away, customization cars. ETC, And I could wait and pay for extra 500 cars in patches.

Kaz and PD team mention that GT5 will have as many and more cars then GT4.
BUT.. I think First GT5 release will only have as close to 350-400 cars, half of what's promised. Then patches with cars will be released.. Well I do not mind, only if they put damage and customizable parts, decals paints.

 

[homeforsummer]

Personally, I'd prefer PD did it properly at release - giving us lots of cars, and the option to fully tune them etc, rather than churning out the game as soon as they can and giving us stuff later. It isn't just the cars that are taking the time, it's the whole game.

And RedBaron - the GT5P physics are nothing like GT1's. GT1 was impressive at the time but it's not remotely comparable with GT5P. There was even a noticable difference between GT1 and GT2.

You're beginning to strike me as the sort of person who's going to ask for more and more features from PD and never be satisfied with what they can provide.

 

[Joey D]

I would not classify the GT series as a sim as you can not do half the stuff a sim should allow you to do. MS Flight Simulator is a prime example of how a sim should be, it should give you the feeling of actually being in control of the act in question.

GT is still a game, albeit with good dynamics, feels somewhat realistic, and has a decent selection of vehicles. It's a game because I can not set up a given situation in which to deal with, tune the vehicle 100%, etc. This does not mean it is a bad game though.

 

[Juice476]

I would not classify the GT series as a sim as you can not do half the stuff a sim should allow you to do. MS Flight Simulator is a prime example of how a sim should be, it should give you the feeling of actually being in control of the act in question.

GT is still a game, albeit with good dynamics, feels somewhat realistic, and has a decent selection of vehicles. It's a game because I can not set up a given situation in which to deal with, tune the vehicle 100%, etc. This does not mean it is a bad game though.

A sim is supposed to crash back to desktop all the time, And need a computer 1000 years in the future to run it?

I'm sorry I agree with everything you posted I just had to through the jab at FSX.

Speaking of FS another great thing about PC sims is user created content.

 

[Zer0]

People do not realize that real training hardware and software, true real simulators, not pc games, didn't come with all demanded stuff like customization, damage, etc? most times even the collision detection is non existant.

I would like to see how this people say that his pc simulator is the real deal, and how that multi million dollar specialized toys are not valid simulators.

 

[magburner]

I'd love for someone to tell me how GT4 was a step back from GT3. I genuinely don't know what you're referring to. Also expanding on the GT5P point would be great 👍

GT4 was definitely NOT a step back from GT3! There was a very noticeable difference with the physics between the two games. IMO, the difference is as noticeable as from GT4 to GT5.

going back to the simulation thing.

I have been thinking about this today whilst at work, and I still think that Gran Turismo in general (no specific game) is a good simulation, but it needs to be tidied up a little, most of which is just standard stuff.

For instance:

* It is high time that we had at least the option to have reverse through the gears. I have never seen a car with a reverse button, or reverse not on the gear stick, thats not saying it doesn't exist, but it isn't normal. Makes me wonder why PD did it in the first place.

* ASM and TCS, and ECU on cars that would realistically have it. No 1960's cars with that kind of stuff etc.

* Full car experience. This includes lights, wipers, turn signals, adjustable chairs, and mirrors etc.

* On the subject of mirrors. Full fidelity mirrors. Not those poor 'parts of the scenery missing' things they have in GT5. This is the PS3 for crying out loud, are you seriously telling me that it can't handle full detail in the mirrors?

* Realistic automatic transmission. I have never seen an autoimatic with 6 gears and a racing clutch. Thats not to say that it is not possible, but thats not what normal automatics are like. I've seen plenty with P, D, R, 1, 2, and even sports, but never standard 1-6 gears.

* A couple of more whys? Why has every car got the same size petrol tank, and use petrol at the same rate (GT4)? Why does your car always need its engine oil changed every 300km (GT4)? Why can't I get two wheels off the road? Why is the underside not modelled?

One last thing. I am curious about. Does anyone know if PD are simulating the action, or the result? For example, when you place an ECU in the car, does PD evaluate its prescence, by calculating its effect on the engine and fuel flow etc, or do they just add a predefined number of horsepower to the car, 'because it has a chip in it'?

 

[mu22stang]

This is the GT5 forum. Some of these things, e.g. oil changes, petrol tanks, and ECUs, don't have relevance to the current game or this discussion.

For those that do - The reverse button is there so you can imediately go to R when you're in a jam. They could make this better, but, who cares. Blinkers and turn signals serve no purpose. However, if weather changes were in the game, wipers and lights would be essential. I think the full detail mirrors aren't here because, despite the graphical capabilties of the PS3, discrete and fast changing details are hard to discern. They are simplified for, what PD sees, our benefit. Oh, and yes many modern automatics/semis do indeed have 5,6,7, and 8 gears.

All these little things are nice, but they don't stand as make/break characteristics of a game that simulates realistic reactions to inputs. This game/demo/beta, whatever the heck you want to call it, has areas that are loads better than some games, and struggles in others. It's still a sim.

 

[wnffe]

Of course GT5P is a sim. Its just a restraint sim.

For me a driving sim (PC or anything) should have a correct physics so you can learn how to control the car dynamics. That's all what matters. I don't want to crash my car for sure, I just want to have car control as good as possible. And I don't need to learn how to turn the signal or see the reverse light or driving in the night. Learn the real thing to do that..

Physics is the only key for me. To do things that you can rarely do in real life, which is racing and driving at the limit..which are very expensive. Just like flight simulators, you need sim so you can learn to control and not crashing. And believe it or not I play a lot of PC sim as well, but non of them got it 100% correct either and they wont get up to 100% sim even the world turn into the Matrix.

Nothing can achieve the real thing.

Seriously for those unbelievers, would you class 'need for speed' or 'burnout paradise' as a sim if they have those features of damage/ weather/ tyre wear/ signals/ lights/ settings options/ pit calls and other fancy things? Even the physics model is a flaw? What do you want to achieve in a driving/ racing sim then??

Honestly...

 

[eight6er]

I'd love for someone to tell me how GT4 was a step back from GT3. I genuinely don't know what you're referring to. Also expanding on the GT5P point would be great 👍

The reason I think gt4 is a step backwards over gt3, is you can trail bake, lift off oversteer and drift in gt3, these things are not simulated in gt4, so for me gt4 was a big fail. In gt4 when the wheels spin at low speed they would not propel the car fast enough this is really evident when you try to drift, gt3 had this problem too but it was not as bad as you could still drift and gt5p also shares this problem in the same way as gt4 did.

The most important thing to me is the handling physics I'm not really too concerned about tyre wear or damage or over heating clutches etc. I just want to be able to do anything a real car can do, as far as driving goes. LFS can do these things and I think PD could make GT just as realistic but they choose not to unfortunately.

 

[RedBaron]

Wow, the physics from GT1 and 5: Prologue arent comparable at all.

Not because it has been polished five times, but still has the same basics. And simulating inner tyre lift or realistic jump is not going to shorten the sales at all. So don't apologize them for being lazy when three folks developed better physics engine after their work than 100+ people team of PD in ten years.

 

[amar212]

Not because it has been polished five times, but still has the same basics. And simulating inner tyre lift or realistic jump is not going to shorten the sales at all. So don't apologize them for being lazy when three folks developed better physics engine after their work than 100+ people team of PD in ten years.

If you really-really-really think that rFactor, LFS or iRacing have the better drving physics than one represented in GT5, than your arguments should be taken as a provocation. I can agree those physics are great, full-released and such, but the sheer driving, weight transfer, tyre physics and lateral movement physics are behind one in GT5. Sorry mate.

People do not realize that real training hardware and software, true real simulators, not pc games, didn't come with all demanded stuff like customization, damage, etc? most times even the collision detection is non existant.

I would like to see how this people say that his pc simulator is the real deal, and how that multi million dollar specialized toys are not valid simulators.

Zero, you just can't explain anything to someone who can't see beyond his own nose.

However, I back up with your arguments as always.