what is the most annoying in GT4?

[crazyace08]

Yes ive played Toca before and agree in that game the damage works and makes it more realistic. What i cannot help but think of tho is the poor AI in the GT. Not fixing that would in my opinion make any damage physics pointless. Let them sort out the AI first and then once they have done so then add the damage by all means. What would be cool is if both were addressed in the next release. But maybe thats asking too much?.

Anglo American

i would agree completely, what the point of damage if the a.i is going to ram you anyway??? to add damage i think like angloamerican said, they should addresse the a.i first!! i agree with peter jb too, i hate the hong kong track with a passion, thats one track i wont miss at all if they removed it!!!

 

[PeterJB]

Yes ive played Toca before and agree in that game the damage works and makes it more realistic. What i cannot help but think of tho is the poor AI in the GT. Not fixing that would in my opinion make any damage physics pointless. Let them sort out the AI first and then once they have done so then add the damage by all means. What would be cool is if both were addressed in the next release. But maybe thats asking too much?.

Anglo American

GT4 is the most advanced PS2 game, and the PS3 is said to be more advanced than an Xbox 360, so i'm sure PS3's are perfectly capable of handling the added components of GT5, the Damage and decent AI, even it it strains the PS3 as much as GT4 strained the PS2.

 

[PeterJB]

i would agree completely, what the point of damage if the a.i is going to ram you anyway??? to add damage i think like angloamerican said, they should addresse the a.i first!! i agree with peter jb too, i hate the hong kong track with a passion, thats one track i wont miss at all if they removed it!!!

The AI bashing me blindly never seemed to bother me, mainly because i could get away so easily!

 

[crazyace08]

The AI bashing me blindly never seemed to bother me, mainly because i could get away so easily!

trust me, with damage on, you wont get far lol

 

[AngloAmerican]

GT4 is the most advanced PS2 game, and the PS3 is said to be more advanced than an Xbox 360, so i'm sure PS3's are perfectly capable of handling the added components of GT5, the Damage and decent AI, even it it strains the PS3 as much as GT4 strained the PS2.

I hope it would be because addressing just those two things would add so much more realism to an already great video gaming experience.

AngloAmerican

 

[Jay.]

Basically, I race nearly all races as if I would submit the replay for OLR, so actual damage is a moot point.

Snap!

I try to race by the rules.

Staying on the track!

If I wanted to ram the other cars or liked bouncing off walls I would have bought something like Burnout.

At the end of the day GT4 is a racing game not a destruction derby.

Back on topic, it would be better if the AI was more aware and competitive.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

A lot of people keep saying we need damage in the GT games. Well what do you think would happen if we did have damage and we were on that "perfect lap" and "in the groove" and the stupid a$$ AI rams into us. Do you think the car would/should still be competitive after that?. I mean in real life a small bump can screw up a car can't it?. I bet we may change our minds regards the damage if it actually was implemented, as i think it could do it more harm than good.

The Ai rams into us when we let them. Once you get to know how the sim cars are in the habit of driving, it becomes possible to avoid them and their stupidity. Anyways, do I think the car would/should be competitive after a huge accident? Of course not, but it's realistic! Plenty of other driving games incorporate damage; why can't Polyphony Digital really sock it to Forza Motorsport and make the gaming world an ever better place?

I don't know why I never posted in this thread, but absolutely the single most annoying thing in GT4 - bar none in my book - is how often the AI fields include 4 relatively even cars and 1 monster that zooms away at the start and leaves the rest of the field in the dust. This absolutely ruins the potential enjoyment of many series.

Case in point - I recently ran the GTI Cup. I used a Polo GTI because I had already driven the Lupo and Golf, and because I figured that as the second-tier car it would give me a decent run against the AI Golf GTI.

Wrong!

At Tsukuba I started 6th and worked my way through the crowd in the first lap... up to 2nd. The MkV GTI was barely visible in the distance by the time I cleared traffic. By the 3-lap finish, I was 6 seconds behind the MkV - and 14 seconds AHEAD of the rest of the field! That's just pathetic. So much for any chance of an enjoyable race - tune to match the rabbit, and utterly destroy the rest of the field.

And for all that I was awarded a crappy 6 A-spec points because the majority of the field was so slow. This, in a race I could only win by bunting the hot shoe off the track in the first corner so that I could get on with a decent race against the others.

Not every race is this horrible, but a good many of them are! when I did the 1000 Miles! a few weeks back, I sat there for at least 2 hours trying to find that perfect lineup so I wouldn't get completely bored. This means I would reset the race, look at the lineup and compare the stats of all cars in the race (yes, I also sat there and looked up their weight and how much power they're using in the race)! Then I would enter and drive a few laps (anywhere from 2 to 10). Not only did I get some practice in at Nurburgring, but I also found a good match for my 1970 Honda 1300 coupe, which is a rare front-drive classic car with power enough to compete (but boy does it eat front tires).

Turns out when I had the Lotus Elan S1 and '68 Nissan Fairlady, that first race at the Nurb turned out to be pretty interesting. Paris kinda sucked but both Sarthe and Cote were fun. I almost ran outta gas at the end of Sarthe, too, while the Fairlady got closer and closer in my mirror!

But still, there are too many races in GT4 as you describe (one rocket car and 4 slugs). GT3 was even worse!! All this is making me miss GT2 at times!!!

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

The Ai rams into us when we let them. Once you get to know how the sim cars are in the habit of driving, it becomes possible to avoid them and their stupidity.

Excellent point.

That said, I too would like to see the AI in future GT games become more reactive to the other cars on the track. By contrast, Sony’s latest F1 game, Formula One: Championship Edition features incredibly intuitive AI. They avoid crashes extremely well, which is a good thing, considering F1:CE has very realistic crash damage as well as mechanical failure, thus punishing drivers who are too hard on their cars engines and transmissions. If GT5 incorporates the same style AI and optional crash damage and mechanical failure for ALL cars I’ll be extremely impressed!

To be fair to PD, one must also consider the fact that PD was developing GT4 before 2001, and had finished development by 2004. They were also limited to what the PS2 was capable of doing, and were limited to only 8GB of data. A lot has changed over the last three years, and with the PS3’s immense processing power, and remarkable 50GB disc capacity, I suspect we will see many significant improvements never seen before in any sim-style driving game.

The Plenty of other driving games incorporate damage; why can't Polyphony Digital really sock it to Forza Motorsport and make the gaming world an ever better place?

To be fair to PD, I can't think of a single "simulator" style driving game that has had real damage effects on licensed road cars. Its been suggested that the reason for this is that manufacturers wont license their cars for use in simulator driving games that have damage, as they do not want to suggest to potential buyers that their cars are unsafe.

Personally, I think that's silly. Not only is crash damage the fault of the driver, not the car, but you could easily program the damage to be applied equally among all cars, such that all cars will receive the same amount of crash damage when involved in the same type of mishap.

For that matter, I'd even be happy if there was no visual damage (if that would appease the manufacturers), only performance damage - as the main reason for damage is to prevent online players from cheating in races by taking shortcuts, riding rails, and smashing into AI cars to help them turn into corners at faster speeds.

In a way GT4 already has something like this in the Special Conditions races where if you hit the walls/buildings to hard, it gives you a 5 seconds slow down penalty. Of course, the penalties really should be greater, as some impacts would have realistically destroyed the car, resulting in a DNF. It's just too bad they didn't give the option of this for all the races, as that would have helped put a stop to drivers who smash into other cars and ride the rails, or drive off the track to make a short cut. 👎

The point is, some form of damage modeling that impacts the performance, and or race time of the player at fault is greatly needed to keep race results and leaderboards free from those who refuse to race cleanly.

The good news is that Kazunori Yamauchi, the creator of Gran Turismo and President of Polyphony Digital, has made it clear that they really want to incorporate some realistic damage modeling and have even suggested that all the race cars in GT5 will have real damage effects. I'm still holding out hope that they can get the OK from manufacturers of the licensed road cars to allow for damage, but if not, I hope they can figure out a reasonable way to punish drivers who do not follow the race rules, and who ram other cars and ride rails in order to set fastest lap times.

Not every race is this horrible, but a good many of them are! when i did the 1000 Miles! a few weeks back, i sat there for at least 2 hours trying to find that perfect lineup so i wouldn't get completely bored. This means i would reset the race, look at the lineup and compare the stats of all cars in the race (yes, i also sat there and looked up their weight and how much power they're using in the race)! Then i would enter and drive a few laps (anywhere from 2 to 10). Not only did i get some practice in at Nurburgring, but i also found a good match for my 1970 Honda 1300 coupe, which is a rare front-drive classic car with power enough to compete (but boy does it eat front tires).

That's why I made the AI Ranking & Data and qualifying threads. This way, finding the right line-up can be done failry quickly and easily.

For 1000 Miles Event:

• Ranking & Data on All the AI Cars for European Event: 1000 Miles!
  
  
• Ranking & Info on All 51 Cars that Qualify for the European 1000 Miles! (post #23)

The key to enjoying close competive racing in GT4 is knowing how well you will do in the car and set-up you have selected, and knowing the capabilities of the AI. And because the AI in GT4 is extremely consistent, prediciting their results is very easy to do.

 

[Driving Park]

1. The 5-second penalty in rally.
2. The AI. No explanation needed.

 

[Tornado]

To be fair to PD, one must also consider the fact that PD was developing GT4 before 2001, and had finished development by 2004. They were also limited to what the PS2 was capable of doing, and were limited to only 8GB of data.

I doubt that is what prevented PD from implementing good AI, if that is what you are getting at.

To be fair to PD, I can't think of a single "simulator" style driving game that has had real damage effects on licensed road cars.

NFS: Porsche Unleashed and Jarett and Labonte stock car racing both did.
And in any case, didn't Forza have it as well?

In a way GT4 already has something like this in the Special Conditions races where if you hit the walls/buildings to hard, it gives you a 5 seconds slow down penalty. Of course, the penalties really should be greater, as some impacts would have realistically destroyed the car, resulting in a DNF. It's just too bad they didn't give the option of this for all the races, as that would have helped put a stop to drivers who smash into other cars and ride the rails, or drive off the track to make a short cut.

Actually, I think the amount it was used in the game was too much, considering how poorly implemented it was.

For that matter, I'd even be happy if there was no visual damage (if that would appease the manufacturers), only performance damage

Didn't GT2 feature something somewhat similar to that? I think there was an option for it in arcade mode or something, if I recall correctly.

 

[Bulldozer]

Yes ive played Toca before and agree in that game the damage works and makes it more realistic. What i cannot help but think of tho is the poor AI in the GT. Not fixing that would in my opinion make any damage physics pointless. Let them sort out the AI first and then once they have done so then add the damage by all means.

You're right, think of what would happen if the AI could damage their cars!

You could have fun with it though. Imagine entering an old VW Beetle in a race against touring cars. Wait for the AI to bash the walls and each other until they're all disabled. Then finish the race as the sole survivor! The hardest part would be the slalom through the wreckage.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

I doubt that is what prevented PD from implementing good AI, if that is what you are getting at.

Yes. There has been an obvious steep learning curve on programming advanced AI in all types of games including racing games. Comparing AI from similar games from the same time period, GT's was in my opinion the best. Yes we all know how much you like arcade style rubber-band AI, but for me, the AI in GT4 was a step-up from GT3 and above most other driving games at the time - especially considering the fact that they had nearly 700 cars that the AI drive, and over 50 courses... thus making it many times more complicated than most games.

NFS: Porsche Unleashed and Jarett and Labonte stock car racing both did. And in any case, didn't Forza have it as well?

What type of damage is done and on what cars. Visual damage? Performance damage? Both?

Actually, I think the amount it was used in the game was too much, considering how poorly implemented it was.

This doesn't come as a shock to me considering your preference for arcade rubber band AI as well. I think having only a 5 second penalty for hitting a wall at over 100 mph is quite reasonable, and if anything it should have been greater, and should definitely been at least an option for all races.

Could it have been implemented better? Absolutely, but at least it was better than nothing at all - except I can see why those who prefer arcade style driving games would disagree. Once again, it would have been nice if it was an option and an option for all races - and that reported race times included whether or not you were racing with penalties turned on or not.

Frankly, the biggest problem with GT right now is that to get the fastest lap and race times possible, you have to drive like its an arcade game, using shortcuts, riding rails, and hitting other cars to slow you down and make quicker turns. It also allows the players to drive right on and over the edge of the car's abilities because at worst you slam into the track barrier with no consequences, and off you go racing again. If damage and/or penalties applied, that would put an end to that, and for the first time we would see realistic lap times to compare fairly with one another. It would also result in closer races with the AI... something many people, including yourself, say they like.

Now I'm also in favor of having these as options, so for those that prefer arcade style driving techniques, and arcade style AI, they should be allowed to select it. Only that for reporting fast times, a notation is also added to show what options were being used.

 

[Tornado]

Comparing AI from similar games from the same time period, GT's was in my opinion the best.

And I can't say that I agree. I've have played at least half a dozen to a full dozen sim games that have had far better AI than either GT4 or GT3 could dream of, and about half of those came out before both on much less powerful hardware.

Yes we all know how much you like arcade style rubber-band AI, but for me, the AI in GT4 was a step-up from GT3 and above most other driving games at the time

I can't understand why you would say that. Regardless of whether or not it is more realistic, the fact that the AI in GT4 did not have any rubber band pieces in it does not make it better; made blatantly obvious in how there is pretty much no race in the entire game that is challenging without entering a comically uncompetitive backmarker. The AI is simply not good, period. The fact that I have a preference to GT3s also does not mean I think it is better than GT4s, but only prefer it because it is more challenging and the game is actually fun to race against AI drivers without using a crapbox to do so.

especially considering the fact that they had nearly 700 cars that the AI drive, and over 50 courses... thus making it many times more complicated than most games.

I'm sure it wouldn't have been that terribly hard to program an A.I. driving style for each drive layout and then do that to each course (which is probably what they did), and I can't honestly believe that they coded individual AI characteristics for each car then applied each one to each course. And in any case, based on how similarly the AI drives compared to GT3 when the rubber band AI is not in effect, I doubt they even did that much.

What type of damage is done and on what cars. Visual damage? Performance damage? Both?

Both. In Porsche Unleashed it may have been easier to do because all EA had to do was shower just Porsche with money to make it happen, but Jarett and Labonte Stock Car Racing had stuff ranging from the Peugoet 106 to the Viper GTS.

This doesn't come as a shock to me considering your preference for arcade rubber band AI as well.

What does that have to do with anything? If anything, rubber band AI would have made the penalties even more annoying because they would happen more often. Why exactly are you trying to drive this point home?

I think having only a 5 second penalty for hitting a wall at over 100 mph is quite reasonable, and if anything it should have been greater, and should definitely been at least an option for all races.

And I think that PD should have toyed with the non-visible damage that GT2 had instead of taking an easy way out and not even implementing it very well on top of that.

Could it have been implemented better? Absolutely, but at least it was better than nothing at all - except I can see why those who prefer arcade style driving games would disagree.

What crap. When you lose a race because you are rearended by the moronic AI and get slapped with a 5 second penalty, you tell me that it has to do with preference to arcade games. Until then, don't start saying that the player liking Need For Speed or whatever is what got them a penalty.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

And I can't say that I agree. I've have played at least half a dozen to a full dozen sim games that have had far better AI than either GT4 or GT3 could dream of, and about half of those came out before both on much less powerful hardware.

Outrageously gross exaggeration.

there is pretty much no race in the entire game that is challenging without entering a comically uncompetitive backmarker. The AI is simply not good, period.

Completely untrue and gross exaggeration of the facts. In the same car and set-up, and driving cleanly, the AI is VERY competitive, and I've tested them thoroughly to prove they are not artificially slow. Even when you are not in the same car using the same set-up, you certainly do not need a "comically uncompetitive backmarker" to have a close race. Now you are just being ridiculous, and completely unreasonable.

The fact that I have a preference to GT3s also does not mean I think it is better than GT4s, but only prefer it because it is more challenging and the game is actually fun to race against AI drivers without using a crapbox to do so.

Same as above - More exaggerations, as it is a fact that you do not need a crapbox car to have a very close competitive race in GT4.

I'm sure it wouldn't have been that terribly hard to program an A.I. driving style for each drive layout and then do that to each course (which is probably what they did), and I can't honestly believe that they coded individual AI characteristics for each car then applied each one to each course. And in any case, based on how similarly the AI drives compared to GT3 when the rubber band AI is not in effect, I doubt they even did that much.

[SARCASM]
I guess you are an expert on programming AI... you ought to apply for a job at PD as they obviously need your expertise...
[/SARCASM]

Both. In Porsche Unleashed it may have been easier to do because all EA had to do was shower just Porsche with money to make it happen, but Jarett and Labonte Stock Car Racing had stuff ranging from the Peugoet 106 to the Viper GTS.

Very different than having over 500 production road cars from over 50 different manufacturers from around the world.

What does that have to do with anything? If anything, rubber band AI would have made the penalties even more annoying because they would happen more often. Why exactly are you trying to drive this point home?

I've already made it clear. Just as rubber-band AI makes a game more arcade like, so does having a game with no damage and/or penalties. If the goal or desire of the GT series is to be more realistic, then there is no place for rubber-band AI and it needs to stop rewarding arcade style driving. GT4 at least removed the rubber-band AI, and including a minor penalty for crashes in Special Events. Fortunately, from what I have heard so far, PD is trying to add more realsim into the GT series with damage and penalties.

And I think that PD should have toyed with the non-visible damage that GT2 had instead of taking an easy way out and not even implementing it very well on top of that.

I agree. However I certainly would not agree that not having it all would have been better. Hopefully next time around the implementation will be better.

What crap. When you lose a race because you are rearended by the moronic AI and get slapped with a 5 second penalty, you tell me that it has to do with preference to arcade games. Until then, don't start saying that the player liking Need For Speed or whatever is what got them a penalty.

Have you never even raced a special event race? If the AI runs into you from behind, even at over 100 mph there is no penalty. In fact, you can even hit the AI car and even the walls at speeds that if it were realistic you'd have crashed out of the race... and still no 5 second penalty. If you do hit the AI car or walls with enough impact to get a 5-second penalty, it doesn't even stop you, only slows you down. You really have to screw up to get a 5-second penalty, and if it were realistic, you would have likely crashed out of the race entirely.

Once again, I understand why those who are used to or like arcade style driving techniques where there are no consequences for hitting cars and walls, might not like it, but at least it helps a little to try and keep the racing somewhat clean, although a good deal more is needed before it will come close to being realistic.




All that being said, clearly this discussion isn't getting anywhere, especially now that you are resorting to grossly exaggerating the facts, which not only discredits most of what you say, but draws attention away from the actual facts and the point of the discussion.

In addition, using terms like comical, crapbox, crap, moronic, etc doesn’t suggest to me that you are at a place where one could have a reasonable and logical conversation with you. You almost sound like you have a personal beef against PD, GT4, the AI and the penalties to the point no amount of reason and truth is going to matter or change your mind about anything. Either that or perhaps you just like to argue for argument sake.

This isn’t the first time I’ve had this problem when trying to have a reasonable conversation with you, and unfortunately in the past nothing good came from continuing to try… so I won’t continue trying now.

 

[Orion]

Completely untrue and gross exaggeration of the facts. In the same car and set-up, and driving cleanly, the AI is VERY competitive, and I've tested them thoroughly to prove they are not artificially slow. Even when you are not in the same car using the same set-up, you certainly do not need a "comically uncompetitive backmarker" to have a close race. Now you are just being ridiculous, and completely unreasonable.

Wow this thread is getting interesting!

The A.I. in GT4 aren't bad, but they aren't good. If they are soo good, then why can I beat the A.I. when they are in a Fiat 500R, while I'm in a SUBARU 360? The 360 only has a top speed of 50MPH, 54MPH downhill on light throttle, and about 80MPH when clutch is disengaged depending on how long the hill is. The Fiat 500R can easily do over 50MPH, and both my car and the A.I. cars were stock. Same tires, no nos, just stock. I beat him on numerous courses, and working on beating him on the Nurburgring. (Maybe I need a gearbox for the Nurburgring, but you get my point.) Also why do the A.I. always end up in the pit stop on Motorland Reverse? Even on second lap??? They can't drive. They just go in the sand, hit the pit wall, then enter the pit, causing me to relap them.

Watch the A.I. go off-course constantly when driving a RUF, Ford GT, ZZ-II, and plenty more. They can't even drive a TVR Speed 12!

daan even has video's of how much the A.I. suck at driving, now to look for them.

Found it.

Watch this and this and then come back and tell me that GT4 AI is very good.

 

[Tornado]

Outrageously gross exaggeration.

Really?
Sports Car GT. Came out in 1998.
Viper Racing. Came out in 1997.
Test Drive Le Mans. Came out in 2000.
Jarett and Labonte Stock Car Racing. Came out in 2000.
Need For Speed: Porsche Unleashed. Came out 2000.
Driving Emotion Type-S. Came out in 2000.
That is a half dozen right there, and they all came out before GT4 and GT3. And they all had far better AI. Hell, for all of its other flaws, even R:Racing Evolution had better AI than GT4. So what is the "gross exaggeration" part?
I also find it incredibly funny that you call GT4's AI good when arguing with me, but you support Parnelli's statement that it essentially is our job to avoid the AI and not the AI's job to even attempt to avoid us.

Completely untrue and gross exaggeration of the facts. In the same car and set-up, and driving cleanly, the AI is VERY competitive, and I've tested them thoroughly to prove they are not artificially slow.

So lets get this straight: You mean similar as in 60 A-Spec points or similar on paper? Because I for one walked, for example, the F1 Championship. Which involves a car that is very similar in spec to the others in the race, if I recall correctly. For that matter, the hardest part of that series was not falling asleep as I put lap after lap on second place.
In any case, you yourself have repeatedly said that the fix for poor AI is to enter races with slower cars, so I really don't understand where you are coming from.

Even when you are not in the same car using the same set-up, you certainly do not need a "comically uncompetitive backmarker" to have a close race.

There is a thread in the race reports subforum where a Taurus SHO was raced against a Shelby Series 1 and other, similar cars. The driver won by less then a second, I believe. That is a close race, won by a comically uncompetitive backmarker. And I mean comically uncompetitive. So, how would that be possible if the AI was anywhere near competent, especially since all of the cars in that race probably had highly inflated specs as per usual? Is HiSpeed just that much of an amazing driver?

Same as above - More exaggerations, as it is a fact that you do not need a crapbox car to have a very close competitive race in GT4.

So, why are there so many complaints about AI competency? Why is it even remotely possible for some of the feats in the 200 A-Spec Points thread? Do you think I am making this up, or do you own GT4: Better Edition. Face it: The AI in GT4 is just bad. It was bad when it was new, it was bad in GT3, and it is bad now. Turning off the rubber-band effect is not some switch that makes the AI any better, more realistic though it may be, if the actual competence of the now rubber-bandless AI still sucks.

[SARCASM]
I guess you are an expert on programming AI... you ought to apply for a job at PD as they obviously need your expertise...
[/SARCASM]

Whether I am an expert at programming or not, multiple things make the fact that PD programmed a bench for the AI more likely than them doing individual AI for individual cars.

1. Various brake problems experienced by the AI at Le Sarthe and Le Sarthe II. Unless you are willing to believe that they programmed the AI purposely to slide off the end of the track; or in the case of cars like the Corvette C1, come to a near stop about 50 yards before the actual turn; and then let it go through quality control.
2. Cars like the Cizeta understeer seemingly for the sake of understeering, as if the way they set the car up to drive and the way the AI is set up is incompatible.
3. The AI acts pretty much the same as it did in GT3 if you were just trailing them but not too far back. This wouldn't have been the case if all of the AI was redone for GT4.
   
4. You. Don't. Program. AI. That. Way. It is a time wasting process that, had PD individually done each car, GT4 would still not be out. Its far easier to develop AI that will fit over most, if not all, of the cars and drivetrain types and then implement it into each course. This is pretty obviously what GT4 had, as the cars that act weirdly show. Unless PD just didn't quality test GT4 at all, which is something I find laughable considering how long it was in development.

Very different than having over 500 production road cars from over 50 different manufacturers from around the world.

So, once again it doesn't count because of scale, despite very readily answering your actual question.

If the goal or desire of the GT series is to be more realistic, then there is no place for rubber-band AI and it needs to stop rewarding arcade style driving.

Okay. And when PD comes up with competent replacements for either, they can go right ahead and implement them. Because GT4 had no competent replacement for either.

Have you never even raced a special event race? If the AI runs into you from behind, even at over 100 mph there is no penalty.

And then you slide into the wall at 50-60 MPH, and get a penalty. Unless that energy just dissapates into the air, which last I checked doesn't happen.

In fact, you can even hit the AI car and even the walls at speeds that if it were realistic you'd have crashed out of the race... and still no 5 second penalty.

So, around 30mph is a speed that would crash someone out of a race? I didn't know that. And you can pretty much tap AI cars and get a penalty, so I don't get where that is coming from.

You almost sound like you have a personal beef against PD, GT4, the AI and the penalties to the point no amount of reason and truth is going to matter or change your mind about anything.

Dude, you just said GT4 had the best AI out of games that were released in similar time periods; despite videos, many personal accounts and games that came out 7 years earlier all saying you are wrong. All you ever do is shower GT4 with praises, and everytime someone says anything against GT4 it is as if they are committing adultery. Learn some freaking objectivity before you try to criticize that of others, and especially before you allude to other's tastes being below your own as you constantly have been saying of me since I said the penalty system and AI was poorly done. You are not better than me if I prefer GT3 to GT4, or arcade games to sim games (and I'd like to know why rubber-band AI is so horribly terrible in the first place, since every GT until GT4 had it). You are not better than anyone else who does either.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

I tried biting my tongue, but Toronado, you have now gone way too far with your exaggerations, untruths, and now malicious posts.

So what is the "gross exaggeration" part?

Besides not offering objective analysis, as for what you might think is "better" surely isn't what others might consider "better" - doesn;t make any of us wrong, only that we have different subjective opinions on what we consider to be "better".

But as for the gross exaggeration parts...

far better AI than either GT4 or GT3 could dream of

I also find it incredibly funny that you call GT4's AI good when arguing with me, but you support Parnelli's statement that it essentially is our job to avoid the AI and not the AI's job to even attempt to avoid us.

So now you have gone back to your old habits of putting words into other people's mouths and making poor assumptions. I never said it is "our job to avoid the AI and not the AI job to even attempt to avoid us". In fact why don't you go back and read my response to Parnelli's statement:

The Ai rams into us when we let them. Once you get to know how the sim cars are in the habit of driving, it becomes possible to avoid them and their stupidity.

Excellent point.

That said, I too would like to see the AI in future GT games become more reactive to the other cars on the track. By contrast, Sony’s latest F1 game, Formula One: Championship Edition features incredibly intuitive AI. They avoid crashes extremely well, which is a good thing, considering F1:CE has very realistic crash damage as well as mechanical failure, thus punishing drivers who are too hard on their cars engines and transmissions. If GT5 incorporates the same style AI and optional crash damage and mechanical failure for ALL cars I’ll be extremely impressed!

Furthermore, I have posted in several threads, of which I know for a fact you have read, where I have been quite critical of several aspects of GT4 including how poorly the AI are at reacting to all other cars on the track.

When you suggest otherwise you are not only mistaken, but your purposefully lying, for what purpose I don't know, but it is completely uncalled for!

As for you finding it funny… perhaps you are not aware that it is possible to find fault in the AI, and yet also recognize its strengths, and to know how to get the most out of it in order to have the most enjoyable experience possible based on your own personal preference.

So lets get this straight: You mean similar as in 60 A-Spec points or similar on paper? Because I for one walked, for example, the F1 Championship. Which involves a car that is very similar in spec to the others in the race, if I recall correctly. For that matter, the hardest part of that series was not falling asleep as I put lap after lap on second place.
In any case, you yourself have repeatedly said that the fix for poor AI is to enter races with slower cars, so I really don't understand where you are coming from.

Let's get what straight? How can I get anything straight with someone who continues to exaggerate and distort the truth to their liking with no regard to anything that has been said before.

Besides, I know for a fact you have read my posts where I have been VERY critical of GT4's terrible system for calculating A-spec points, making A-spec points nearly meaningless. As there are many races that are impossible to win that are worth less than 20 points, while there are many races worth 200 points that are easy to win. It's a very flawed point system - but of course you claim I have nothing bad to say about GT4 so you will undoubtedly lie and say I think GT4 is flawless and the greatest game ever made.

There is a thread in the race reports subforum where a Taurus SHO was raced against a Shelby Series 1 and other, similar cars. The driver won by less then a second, I believe. That is a close race, won by a comically uncompetitive backmarker. And I mean comically uncompetitive. So, how would that be possible if the AI was anywhere near competent, especially since all of the cars in that race probably had highly inflated specs as per usual? Is HiSpeed just that much of an amazing driver?

Besides you and I have very different opinions on what qualifies as a comically uncompetitive backmarker.

However, perhaps he is an amazing driver (Smallhorses is an amazing driver). Perhaps you are wrong about the AI having highly inflated specs… (you are). Perhaps he had better tires than the AI... (he did). Perhaps with everything there are exceptions... (there are). Perhaps Smallhorses will be the first to also admit that he has had many close competitive races in GT4 using similar cars... (he has)

Besides, there are also many, many race reports showing similar cars having close races. I know I, and many highly respected GTP members like Smallhorses, have enjoyed many close competitive races without using as you call, comically uncompetitive backmarker crapboxes.

Had you paid any attention to what I had written, I also clearly pointed out that one of the big problems with GT4 is that while the AI race clean lines, the players do not have to and can use the lack of damage and race penalties to turn unrealistically hot laps, thus why it is not surprising to see many race reports where the player dominated the race.

So, why are there so many complaints about AI competency? Why is it even remotely possible for some of the feats in the 200 A-Spec Points thread? Do you think I am making this up, or do you own GT4: Better Edition. Face it: The AI in GT4 is just bad. It was bad when it was new, it was bad in GT3, and it is bad now. Turning off the rubber-band effect is not some switch that makes the AI any better, more realistic though it may be, if the actual competence of the now rubber-bandless AI still sucks.

Wow... such coherent objective analysis.

And then you slide into the wall at 50-60 MPH, and get a penalty. Unless that energy just dissapates into the air, which last I checked doesn't happen.

Wrong again. Besides the fact that if you are sitting on the track getting hit from behind hard enough to then hit the wall at 50-60 mph you clearly should start the race over - that said, you make contact with the walls at over 60 mph without getting the 5-second penalty.

So, around 30mph is a speed that would crash someone out of a race? I didn't know that.

Actually, in real life that is quite possible. At the very least, in real life, if you had a crash at 30 mph, you'd certainly lose a great deal more time than 5 seconds. However, your example is meaningless because in GT4 you not only aren't crashed out, but unless you hit the wall head-on, you wont even get a 5-second penalty at 30 mph.

And you can pretty much tap AI cars and get a penalty, so I don't get where that is coming from.

Completely wrong. You can hit the AI with enough force to push him off his line and never get a penalty, so where are you coming from?

Clearly you either know you are exaggerating the facts, or really have no understanding of how the 5-second penalty is given.

Dude, you just said GT4 had the best AI out of games that were released in similar time periods; despite videos, many personal accounts and games that came out 7 years earlier all saying you are wrong.

You must think very highly of your own personal opinion to suggest that yours is now "many personal accounts".

Besides, the lack of any objective analysis comparing AI from games that are significantly different. And by all means, show me video of all these games that came out 7 years earlier that show that the AI is more intuitive than in GT4.

All you ever do is shower GT4 with praises, and everytime someone says anything against GT4 it is as if they are committing adultery. Learn some freaking objectivity before you try to criticize that of others, and especially before you allude to other's tastes being below your own as you constantly have been saying of me since I said the penalty system and AI was poorly done.

This is where you have gone too far!

I know for a FACT that you have seen me make many many many posts criticizing lots of problems with GT4. Like how bad the AI is at reacting to other cars, how terrible the diary is at navigating and getting useful information from, not having day/night racing for endurance racing, very poor stat info, lack of penalties and damage, all the glitches and errors, etc etc etc. Hell, I even posted criticism in this very thread for crying out loud.

You are not only exaggerating, but lying through your teeth! You are being malicious and frankly your behavior is intolerable! I find it nearly impossible to uncover any truths from your blatantly hyperbolic posts.

You speak of objectivity, but I am not at all convinced you even know what that means. Because if you did, you'd know I place a high priority on objective analysis, and am far less interested in sharing subjective opinion.

Why don't you "freaking" look at many of the threads I created on GT4, where I focus almost entirely on objective analysis. Spending countless hours analyzing and documenting ACTUAL car & race data is what I call being objective.

Please tell me how is it being objective to exaggerate, lie, assume, and base your judgment on personal opinion?

You are not better than me if I prefer GT3 to GT4, or arcade games to sim games (and I'd like to know why rubber-band AI is so un-simlike in the first place, since every GT until GT4 had it). You are not better than anyone else who does either.

And where on earth did I ever say I was. I made it clear that different people like different things, and there is nothing at all wrong with that - nor is one person better than another because of it!

STOP THIS NOW!!!!








I'm really steaming at this point......

I would be very grateful if someone can please step in and help cool this situation off before I say something to Toronado I'm sure I'll regeret later!

 

[daan]

Well, the 2 of you are never going to agree, so just stop doing all the multi quote posts, stop arguing and walk away. Simple.

You do realise that you're arguing over the AI in a computer game? Its not exactly the most important thing in the world, is it? 💡

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Well, the 2 of you are never going to agree, so just stop doing all the multi quote posts, stop arguing and walk away. Simple.

I did try.

You do realise that you're arguing over the AI in a computer game? Its not exactly the most important thing in the world, is it? 💡

If it was only about the AI I'd agree, but he has exggerated and posted several untruths and even made malicious untruths about me personally and my ability to be objective - none of which has anything to do with the AI, nor is there any truth in it.

 

[Torana XU-1]

Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

 

[Smallhorses]

There is a thread in the race reports subforum where a Taurus SHO was raced against a Shelby Series 1 and other, similar cars. The driver won by less then a second, I believe. That is a close race, won by a comically uncompetitive backmarker. And I mean comically uncompetitive. So, how would that be possible if the AI was anywhere near competent, especially since all of the cars in that race probably had highly inflated specs as per usual? Is HiSpeed just that much of an amazing driver?

I feel you've taken my race here and twisted the achievement out of context to suit your own argument about the AI being bad.

1. This is a one-off race, made possible by exploiting the fact that the AI are known to be hopeless at this track, in particular. There is no way, good AI or bad AI, that I could have made the SHO win in any of the other races in that series, nor does this 1 race prove that the AI are overall good or bad, as I've said I exploited their weakness on this track alone.

2. The AI cars here are not running highly inflated specs, they're mostly stock or minorly modifed, as I mentioned, their major disability in this case is that they run SH tyres here, while I ran stock SM tyres. Grip > Grunt in this case, on a tight and relatively twisty circuit.

3. The purpose of the report was to show folks that it is possible to drive cleanly and still win 200 point races, but believe me, in order to get the run 100% clean like this, I had many, many attempts at this race!

You and Digital-Nitrate both make some interesting points about GT4 AI, and other arcade games, but it's been done to death in so many threads before, so as daan suggested, you'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
GT4 AI can be frustrating, but we have to remember that a racing game that presents a challenge to everyone is difficult to make. Make it fun for the Schumachers and holl01s of the world, and a lot of folks would dismiss it as needlessly hard, and impossible to complete. The options are there so that you can smash just about every race with a massively overtuned monster yourself, but then you get folks complaining about how easy everything is, PD really can't win here! It's a game, it's as much fun and as much of a challenge as you want to make it.

 

[Jay.]

Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

Ha ha my name was used in an argument! Rad!

Well it comes down to this: the Ai in GT4 is not perfect. They still do stupid things, but once you know how they drive, you can learn to avoid them and get a great replay. That's all I meant. GT games are therefore like a chess match: You can make your move alright, but that doesn't mean your opponent will just sit back and let you pass them passively. It's not realistic...it's simply the way GT4 is and it's what we have to work with.

There are plenty of times I've held back. I coulda passed that Nissan going into turn 6, (for instance) but I chose not to cuz I knew I'd have maybe 500 yards to slow down and to do so i'd need to "steal" the Nissan's cornering path. That Nissan WILL not accept having his path stolen. He will try & get me sideways. I KNOW THIS!

....therefore it makes more sense to keep behind that Nissan...follow him into the corner, and (instead) attempt to pass him later on in the race.

Trust me, if you follow these guys instead of trying to make a pass, they'll eventually screw up somehow. I've won more races by taking advantage of Ai screwups than I've won thru pure horsepower!

 

[Orion]

Well, the 2 of you are never going to agree, so just stop doing all the multi quote posts, stop arguing and walk away. Simple.

You do realise that you're arguing over the AI in a computer game? Its not exactly the most important thing in the world, is it? 💡

I say continue!

An annoying thing is when the A.I. crashes me on Citta Di Aria while I'm in my Stagea, they push my car between two walls, and my car gets stuck between two walls, because the car is too big to turn away. GAH!

 

[Mr.ThunderMakeR]

2 Lap Races...

What the hell is the point of these? Your tires never even get a chance to warm up. It seems like there is always one AI car that is faster than the rest of the AI who are just there to slow you down (since you ALWAYS start in 6th). You pretty much have to ram through them since you dont have enough laps to pass cleanly. Although I can put in faster laps than the AI (even when they have major HP advantages), it hardly matters since there arent enough laps to make a difference.

Seriously, did they even play test this game? They should have seen how utterly pointless all these 2 lap races are.

 

[takahashi-bros]

the things that most bug me are

1-not loading cars
2-the A.I. there always :censord: hitting me
3-b-spec, not only is it not driving, but the driver sucks!
4-no damage, i mean wheres the realism without damage
5-no drift specific races unless you have online, and i dont

 

[SportWagon]

1. No settings files (as there were in GT1 and GT3).
2. Not getting cars parts and settings via memory card trade (feature of all previous versions)
3. races more than 3 hours long
4. auto-save
5. no car information pages

 

[BobK]

1. No settings files (as there were in GT1 and GT3).
2. Not getting cars parts and settings via memory card trade (feature of all previous versions)
3. races more than 3 hours long
4. auto-save
5. no car information pages

Actually I much prefer GT4's system for saving car settings to the GT1/GT3 system of separate files. When you have a number of cars each with at least two settings files, you end up with a lot of files you have to rummage through to find the one you want. Plus, memory card backup was a tedious and sometimes error-prone process. Granted, GT4 only allows three sets of settings but in my experience that's been enough most of the time.

The auto save isn't too bad if you set the option to only do it when you get in a different car; with it set to the default I'd agree it's a major nuisance. But yeah, I'd prefer to always explicitly do it myself; they should have included that as an option. I'd also prefer they'd included a load option like the three previous had.

No car information pages, right on! I do miss those, even though they seemed to go downhill as the series progressed.

 

[SportWagon]

In GT3 I had F1 settings for almost every track.

The GT4 settings sets might be alright if there were more than three, and you could label them somehow. Also it seems like the game should search for setting to match the tires it just gave you, but I could be persuaded that wouldn't be as good an idea as it sounds.

They could have kept settings files, and done something to improve the finding or organization of them.

I vaguely remember that in GT3 most file backup, including settings files, was more easily done using the in-game file manager rather than the PlayStation one. I also had one or two third-party card manipulation programs which I might have used to help me with backups. (Plus, I tended to be a little risky with settings files, IIRC).

Another annoying thing in GT4 is that you can't maintain a game backup from within the game; you must use the PlayStation memory card manager to make a copy.

Oh yes. In settings, I don't like how easy it is to accidentally change parts and thereby reset settings, and it's annoying to need to wrench each part separately to bring up a mini-settings screen for them. (That's part of what makes it easy to accidentally change parts). Along these lines, it's nice to have settings files so you can easily restore the settings to a known point.

Which brings up another point. It would be nice to be able to copy one set of settings to another. If they did have more than three sets, you'd really start wanting that, I think.

Also, GT3 settings files allowed you to transfer settings from one instance of car to another; you can't do that in GT4.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

2 Lap Races...

What the hell is the point of these? Your tires never even get a chance to warm up. It seems like there is always one AI car that is faster than the rest of the AI who are just there to slow you down (since you ALWAYS start in 6th). You pretty much have to ram through them since you dont have enough laps to pass cleanly. Although I can put in faster laps than the AI (even when they have major HP advantages), it hardly matters since there arent enough laps to make a difference.

Seriously, did they even play test this game? They should have seen how utterly pointless all these 2 lap races are.

These are called "sprint races" in real life. I'll agree that starting in 6th every time is rather annoying, but it's not necessary to "ram through" the Ai...I've done plenty of 2-lap races in GT2 and GT4 where you start in 6th. To win these you have to be adept at out-braking and out-cornering the sims. You just need more practice.

I do agree that you should be able to qualify in these 2-lappers, but then over half the GT gamers here would be stuffing their cars with overkill-power, qualifying first, winning the race too easy, then coming here and boasting about what great drivers they are. 👎

1. No settings files (as there were in GT1 and GT3).
2. Not getting cars parts and settings via memory card trade (feature of all previous versions)
3. races more than 3 hours long
4. auto-save
5. no car information pages

1. Yeah, the setting files are great. I did that a lot too: I'd have different settings saved for the Test Track (for instance) or Cote d'Azur. Now I gotta start memorizing my settings or writing them down again.

4. Auto-save is very annoying. Can't tell you how many times I've wanted to try a car out and if it's expensive I can't do it....as soon as I get in the game will auto-save and I'll be stuck with something I might not want.

5. I'm glad someone else noticed the info pages are missing! Most people will go: so what about the info, I just wanna race! But the info is important from an educational perspective. I learned so much about various cars (even ordinary ones) from those info pages.