Now if only that was a Ferrari. 'Tis a pity that the cars of VC were only inspired by those of the 80's...would have been way cooler if that actually were the cars of the 80's.
Hell, what am I complaining about. Vice City rules!
Gran Turismo 4 Screenshots ????
- Thread starter FuryNSX
- Start date
Now if only that was a Ferrari. 'Tis a pity that the cars of VC were only inspired by those of the 80's...would have been way cooler if that actually were the cars of the 80's.
Hell, what am I complaining about. Vice City rules!
Attachments
*rubs eyes* Do my eyes deceive me?!??!?! Is that an NSX?!?!?! 
All this game needs is an S2000 and i'm buying a PS2/GT4!!!!! Oh wait... <A HREF="http://e3.playstation.com/media/games/104/screenshots/32.jpg">what's this??!!!</A>
<i>*Neo starts collecting his small change*</i>
All this game needs is an S2000 and i'm buying a PS2/GT4!!!!! Oh wait... <A HREF="http://e3.playstation.com/media/games/104/screenshots/32.jpg">what's this??!!!</A>
<i>*Neo starts collecting his small change*</i>
The GT4 actual graphics don't look that good. The XBox's Sega 2002 GT graphics are better. Attached are 2 snapshots of the actual game play in Sega's 2002 GT.
<table>
<tr><td><img src="http://www.sega.com/images/gametitle/segagt2002/ss_segagt_xbx_02_lg.jpg" ></td><td><img src="http://www.sega.com/images/gametitle/segagt2002/ss_segagt_xbx_08_lg.jpg"></td></tr>
</table>
<table>
<tr><td><img src="http://www.sega.com/images/gametitle/segagt2002/ss_segagt_xbx_02_lg.jpg" ></td><td><img src="http://www.sega.com/images/gametitle/segagt2002/ss_segagt_xbx_08_lg.jpg"></td></tr>
</table>
Last edited:
all console graphics suck ...except when you hook them up to a PC Monitor with NO INTERLACING.
Is this ANOTHER game with an NSX? oh, i want, i want!!!
Anyone noticed that Akira3D hasn't been posting lately? Here's the reason why he's still busy at E3 : <A HREF="http://www.homelanfed.com/index.php?id=14298">BOOTH BABES</A>!!!
Is this ANOTHER game with an NSX? oh, i want, i want!!!
Anyone noticed that Akira3D hasn't been posting lately? Here's the reason why he's still busy at E3 : <A HREF="http://www.homelanfed.com/index.php?id=14298">BOOTH BABES</A>!!!
My GT4 impressions
So I got to play a little of GT4 this week, but not nearly as long as I would have liked to. Sony was showing a small sampling of what was supposedly an early build of the game. Only three tracks (Grand Canyon Rally, New York City, and Tsukuba) and 30 or so cars to chose from, but a good variety to give us an idea of the great things to come. Here are my impressions:
- Visually, these tracks were on par if not better visually than my favorites from GT3 (namely the Tokyo R246 and Seattle courses). New York's course sported tons of texture details from street level stores to the billboards of Times Square and lots of reflective glass windows. Grand Canyon blew away the look of rally courses in any other game, offering huge draw distances, photorealistic textures and lighting...but they screwed up the illusion by peppering the course with flat crowds (of course, you hardly notice this when you're driving). This definitely wasn't the graphical leap GT3 made from GT2, but I didn't expect it to be. This iteration simply showed more detail and polish than GT3...and, judging from the progress made from the early showings of GT3, I suspect the final build of GT4 will look even better.
- All of the kiosks were using the new Logitech Driving Force Pro steering wheel, so I can't directly compare the control to my previous GT experiences. That said, the new wheel rocks! The wheel completely revolves 2.5 times in both directions like a real car...and with better and stronger force feedback. It didn't take long to get used to the improved physical control...though rally made me work harder than ever before.
- Physics felt a bit more realistic, especially when it came to catching air in rally. Cars also reacted more naturally from being bumped. Unfortunately, cars still can't get visually damaged...and, as far as I could tell, there wasn't any performance penalty either. From what I understand, car damage is not going to be in GT4...which remains my biggest gripe.
- Car models looked as detailed as GT3 (as if they needed to look better)...and the new offerings looked fantastic.
- Network play via the network adapter supports up to 6 players (2 in rally)...no surprise since the single player game has always featured six car races. Actual gameplay was just as smooth as the single player experience (no surprise considering the i-Link multiplayer mode in GT3 was perfectly fluid). From talking to those working the booth, the current implementation is real early...which led to some confusion when trying to play people on the neighboring kiosks. Basically, one person had to clearly start a network game before the other players pressed start...otherwise, the others would create their own new network games rather than join the existing one. Obviously, this confusion will be fixed long before the final version.
Say what? I think not. Sega GT's cars look plastic and the backgrounds are so washed out...the low contrast lighting is not very naturalistic (suffers from what I call the dreaded PC-look). And from what I saw of it at E3, the same holds true of Sega GT 2.
Yes, a PC can display higher resolution graphics than any of the consoles, but just being able to squeeze more pixels on screen doesn't necessarily mean a whole helluva lot to me. Don't get me started about polygon counts either as I've seen PS2 games that push far more polys than anything on PCs or X-Box. Interlacing isn't as much an issue now that many console games support progressive scan monitors...and remember that standard TV video broadcasts are interlaced. Can you name a PC racing game that looks as good as watching a real race on TV?
As for "all" console graphics sucking, I'd argue that there are many PC games with graphics that suck far harder than anything on the consoles...bad art can't always be blamed on technology.
Aliasing is a much bigger issue when it comes to PS2 games and though many have addressed the problem with various forms of anti-aliasing, Gran Turismo 3 did not...and, at this pre-alpha stage, it doesn't appear that GT4 did either. That's unfortunate, but not horrible. Interlacing and aliasing aside, I still feel that Gran Turismo 3 and 4 pull off more realistic looking visuals than any of the other racing games out there. The lighting is extremely naturalistic, the cars models look phenomenally accurate, the reflections, the contrast, the specular highlights on the roads...the whole package just looks more real to me than any other racer out there.
So I got to play a little of GT4 this week, but not nearly as long as I would have liked to. Sony was showing a small sampling of what was supposedly an early build of the game. Only three tracks (Grand Canyon Rally, New York City, and Tsukuba) and 30 or so cars to chose from, but a good variety to give us an idea of the great things to come. Here are my impressions:
- Visually, these tracks were on par if not better visually than my favorites from GT3 (namely the Tokyo R246 and Seattle courses). New York's course sported tons of texture details from street level stores to the billboards of Times Square and lots of reflective glass windows. Grand Canyon blew away the look of rally courses in any other game, offering huge draw distances, photorealistic textures and lighting...but they screwed up the illusion by peppering the course with flat crowds (of course, you hardly notice this when you're driving). This definitely wasn't the graphical leap GT3 made from GT2, but I didn't expect it to be. This iteration simply showed more detail and polish than GT3...and, judging from the progress made from the early showings of GT3, I suspect the final build of GT4 will look even better.
- All of the kiosks were using the new Logitech Driving Force Pro steering wheel, so I can't directly compare the control to my previous GT experiences. That said, the new wheel rocks! The wheel completely revolves 2.5 times in both directions like a real car...and with better and stronger force feedback. It didn't take long to get used to the improved physical control...though rally made me work harder than ever before.
- Physics felt a bit more realistic, especially when it came to catching air in rally. Cars also reacted more naturally from being bumped. Unfortunately, cars still can't get visually damaged...and, as far as I could tell, there wasn't any performance penalty either. From what I understand, car damage is not going to be in GT4...which remains my biggest gripe.
- Car models looked as detailed as GT3 (as if they needed to look better)...and the new offerings looked fantastic.
- Network play via the network adapter supports up to 6 players (2 in rally)...no surprise since the single player game has always featured six car races. Actual gameplay was just as smooth as the single player experience (no surprise considering the i-Link multiplayer mode in GT3 was perfectly fluid). From talking to those working the booth, the current implementation is real early...which led to some confusion when trying to play people on the neighboring kiosks. Basically, one person had to clearly start a network game before the other players pressed start...otherwise, the others would create their own new network games rather than join the existing one. Obviously, this confusion will be fixed long before the final version.
Say what? I think not. Sega GT's cars look plastic and the backgrounds are so washed out...the low contrast lighting is not very naturalistic (suffers from what I call the dreaded PC-look). And from what I saw of it at E3, the same holds true of Sega GT 2.
Yes, a PC can display higher resolution graphics than any of the consoles, but just being able to squeeze more pixels on screen doesn't necessarily mean a whole helluva lot to me. Don't get me started about polygon counts either as I've seen PS2 games that push far more polys than anything on PCs or X-Box. Interlacing isn't as much an issue now that many console games support progressive scan monitors...and remember that standard TV video broadcasts are interlaced. Can you name a PC racing game that looks as good as watching a real race on TV?
As for "all" console graphics sucking, I'd argue that there are many PC games with graphics that suck far harder than anything on the consoles...bad art can't always be blamed on technology.
Aliasing is a much bigger issue when it comes to PS2 games and though many have addressed the problem with various forms of anti-aliasing, Gran Turismo 3 did not...and, at this pre-alpha stage, it doesn't appear that GT4 did either. That's unfortunate, but not horrible. Interlacing and aliasing aside, I still feel that Gran Turismo 3 and 4 pull off more realistic looking visuals than any of the other racing games out there. The lighting is extremely naturalistic, the cars models look phenomenally accurate, the reflections, the contrast, the specular highlights on the roads...the whole package just looks more real to me than any other racer out there.
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanx for the update Eric... did you think was E3 successful (i heard some people complain there was nothing especially exciting about it - but maybe their expectations were just toooooo high)
I don't want to start an argument about interlacing, but since i'm mostly a PC gamer whenever i look at consoles the first thing that distracts me is the interlacing... which usually results in flicker and the low number of TV scanlines restricts detail. True, many PC racing games suck and lack realism (NFS:HP2 comes to mind)... the best PC game i've seen lately is Pro Race Driver by Codemasters. But when you see any game on PC running at 1600x1200 with Anti-Aliasing and 50+ FPS, its hard to ever look at a console/tv arrangement again...
but that's just my opinion...
what were you going to say about poly-counts on the PS2? oops... i shouldn't have asked.
I don't want to start an argument about interlacing, but since i'm mostly a PC gamer whenever i look at consoles the first thing that distracts me is the interlacing... which usually results in flicker and the low number of TV scanlines restricts detail. True, many PC racing games suck and lack realism (NFS:HP2 comes to mind)... the best PC game i've seen lately is Pro Race Driver by Codemasters. But when you see any game on PC running at 1600x1200 with Anti-Aliasing and 50+ FPS, its hard to ever look at a console/tv arrangement again...
but that's just my opinion...
what were you going to say about poly-counts on the PS2? oops... i shouldn't have asked.
Actually, my biggest gripe with interlacing has nothing to do with flicker or lack of detail, but with field ghosting...which becomes especially annoying when games run at 60Hz since every field can be updated with new visual information. It just makes the visuals appear less solid (I have the same gripe with NTSC video). Of course I'd prefer every game have progressive scan support (and I wish I had a progressive scan TV and DVD player at home), but the overall visual differences between progressive and interlaced video running at 60hz aren't as huge as one might expect.
And I can understand why it's hard to look at a 640x480 screen once you've gotten used to 1600x1200, but not everyone can play PC games at those resolutions and get as consisitently smooth frame rates. I strongly believe that PC game developers don't make nearly the effort that console game developers make to target consistent frame rates. And games that stutter bug me more than anything else since it tends to affect gameplay.
I used to be more of a PC gamer myself, but I became a console nut when the first PlayStation arrived and haven't looked back.
As for E3, I reacted the same way to this show as I have for the past few years. Everything kind of blurs together. Yeah, the production values are imrpoving overall, but there's just so much coming out that it's hard for anything to stand out. And since today's games are growing so much more complex, you really don't get enough time at the show to get a really good feel for how well they play. Forget trying to hear anything...it's just too damn loud.
And what's even more annoying is that the games that really enthused people - Halo 2 and Half-Life 2 - were not very accessible (either by long lines, shown behind closed doors, or were not on the convention floor).
The biggest surprise was the significant lack of excitement generated by the Nintendo booth. They're looking like a third place player. And Microsoft had nothing coming out THIS year that suggested they'd gain any ground against Sony.
I didn't spend much time checking out PC games. I watched video of Doom III, but I'm really not impressed by what I'm seeing thus far. I'm more curious about Halo 2 and Half-Life 2 anyway...
And I can understand why it's hard to look at a 640x480 screen once you've gotten used to 1600x1200, but not everyone can play PC games at those resolutions and get as consisitently smooth frame rates. I strongly believe that PC game developers don't make nearly the effort that console game developers make to target consistent frame rates. And games that stutter bug me more than anything else since it tends to affect gameplay.
I used to be more of a PC gamer myself, but I became a console nut when the first PlayStation arrived and haven't looked back.
As for E3, I reacted the same way to this show as I have for the past few years. Everything kind of blurs together. Yeah, the production values are imrpoving overall, but there's just so much coming out that it's hard for anything to stand out. And since today's games are growing so much more complex, you really don't get enough time at the show to get a really good feel for how well they play. Forget trying to hear anything...it's just too damn loud.
And what's even more annoying is that the games that really enthused people - Halo 2 and Half-Life 2 - were not very accessible (either by long lines, shown behind closed doors, or were not on the convention floor).
The biggest surprise was the significant lack of excitement generated by the Nintendo booth. They're looking like a third place player. And Microsoft had nothing coming out THIS year that suggested they'd gain any ground against Sony.
I didn't spend much time checking out PC games. I watched video of Doom III, but I'm really not impressed by what I'm seeing thus far. I'm more curious about Halo 2 and Half-Life 2 anyway...
Last edited:
So I guess my question for you since you have played the game briefly is: "Are the original screenshots posted, actual game play screens or are they the cinematic introduction to the game?"
Either way, I'm sure GT4 is second to none, but just curious.
Also, in regards to PC vs Console, PC driving games have a bad habit of skimming on real time lighting and effects. I have all the Need For Speed games and while they have gotten progressively better, they are still many notches below PC capability as is shown in other "non-driving based PC games".
I have a lot of fun with Hot Pursuit II but wished that the lighting effects were more realisitic as supposed to just "great graphics". Atmospheric prospective is always there, but the GT4 screens above, if truly game play screens, seem to have the cake.
The Hot Pursuit II intro movie looks like the GT4 screenshots...but its just an intro movie.
Either way, I'm sure GT4 is second to none, but just curious.
Also, in regards to PC vs Console, PC driving games have a bad habit of skimming on real time lighting and effects. I have all the Need For Speed games and while they have gotten progressively better, they are still many notches below PC capability as is shown in other "non-driving based PC games".
I have a lot of fun with Hot Pursuit II but wished that the lighting effects were more realisitic as supposed to just "great graphics". Atmospheric prospective is always there, but the GT4 screens above, if truly game play screens, seem to have the cake.
The Hot Pursuit II intro movie looks like the GT4 screenshots...but its just an intro movie.
Considering there was no cinematic introduction at the show...
Considering that GT3's intro started with real-life footage and full CG renderings, but largely was a recording of actual gameplay footage...
Seriously, any PS2 screenshot that is a higher resolution than NTSC television (640x480) technically can't be a gameplay shot, but that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't reflect the actual in-game visuals. Lately, many developers have been using their PS2 game engines to render high res screenshots for print use...I'll let you guess how I know this.
The real question becomes, if the high-res GT4 shots posted above were rendered by their game engine (as opposed to using a higher-end rendering software), should this affect your opinion of the look of the actual game? I mean, they still use the in-game models, textures, lighting, effects...just rendered at a higher resolution. And what about GT3, which can be played in higher resolutions through multiple PS2s and multiple TVs (Sony has demoed it on as many as 6 screens).
Whoa...I just finished watching through video taken of the E3 Half Life 2 demo. FINALLY there's a game that stands out...way beyond the crowd of anything before it...one that blew my socks off in more ways than one...and this was from looking at poorly compressed video. HL2 is definitely my pick for best of show.
And, yes, it is a PC game. One that will force me to upgrade my video hardware to one that supports pixel shaders...something the consoles can't match.
HL2 makes Doom III look like dated technology! Halo what?
Can you tell I was impressed?
And, yes, it is a PC game. One that will force me to upgrade my video hardware to one that supports pixel shaders...something the consoles can't match.
HL2 makes Doom III look like dated technology! Halo what?
Can you tell I was impressed?
<B>Akira3D:</B> yeah, sounds like you were impressed. For other people interested, you can d/load <A HREF="http://gamefiles.blueyonder.co.uk/blueyondergames/trailers/halflife2/">QuickTime movies of Half-Life 2 here</A> : the 578MB file is meant to be good.
DoomIII doesn't excite me either (thought i was the only one), but i can't wait to see what other companies will do with the engine. (eg. Quake3 was okay, then Medal of Honor:Allied Assault took it to a new dimension)
forgot to mention, even PC games at 1024x768 look great... and Akira3D i also share your dislike of "stuttering" in a game... if it's not smooth, it don't groove!
<B>Teej</B>: Yup, the NFS is great fun but just doesn't satisfy the cravings for realism. I think this has everything to do with the fact that EA makes it -- they over-simplify all their games IMHO. Except maybe BF1942 which is fun.
For other people interested, you can d/load <A HREF="http://gamefiles.blueyonder.co.uk/blueyondergames/trailers/halflife2/">QuickTime movies of Half-Life 2 here</A> : the 578MB file is meant to be good.DoomIII doesn't excite me either (thought i was the only one), but i can't wait to see what other companies will do with the engine. (eg. Quake3 was okay, then Medal of Honor:Allied Assault took it to a new dimension)
forgot to mention, even PC games at 1024x768 look great... and Akira3D i also share your dislike of "stuttering" in a game... if it's not smooth, it don't groove!
<B>Teej</B>: Yup, the NFS is great fun but just doesn't satisfy the cravings for realism. I think this has everything to do with the fact that EA makes it -- they over-simplify all their games IMHO. Except maybe BF1942 which is fun.
The best PC based racing game and perhaps a little too realistic was the PC version of Sports Car GT. The box featured a Race M3 on the cover.
I probably downloaded 100 different cars to drive with including all the JGTC NSX's that someone nicely created and painted to match their real life counterparts.
Havent played the game in a year or two but being an avid race car video game junkie, I'd say Sports Car GT (PC version) takes the title. Its one of those games that if you fall out of first place, you most likely will not finish in first. You also have to wait your turn to pass cars like in real life or else you will find not only your car, but possibly others sliding accross the grass with desperation and hope that you stop on something soft and dont lose your wheel or bumper.
I probably downloaded 100 different cars to drive with including all the JGTC NSX's that someone nicely created and painted to match their real life counterparts.
Havent played the game in a year or two but being an avid race car video game junkie, I'd say Sports Car GT (PC version) takes the title. Its one of those games that if you fall out of first place, you most likely will not finish in first. You also have to wait your turn to pass cars like in real life or else you will find not only your car, but possibly others sliding accross the grass with desperation and hope that you stop on something soft and dont lose your wheel or bumper.
*jaw drops*
So many cars..... and so many old cars... and so many US/Japanese cars!!! I think i'll be buying an PS2 unless an emulator comes out on PC...
What's with the NSX-R LM edition? r they trying to copy the McLaren LM edition?
thanx Akira3D.... this was an awesome post
So many cars..... and so many old cars... and so many US/Japanese cars!!! I think i'll be buying an PS2 unless an emulator comes out on PC...
What's with the NSX-R LM edition? r they trying to copy the McLaren LM edition?
thanx Akira3D.... this was an awesome post
Better versions of those earlier posted pics (and a couple of new ones)
http://www.gamers.com/game/1351024/media
http://www.gamers.com/game/1351024/media
I believe that is the actual LM NSX that there are so many small models of.
Its completely different than the JGTC NSX's. I'm sure someone around here has photos of the car. I'm surprised though that they would use this NSX since it hasnt been raced in years... Hopefully, the current JGTC NSX's are on the game.
Its completely different than the JGTC NSX's. I'm sure someone around here has photos of the car. I'm surprised though that they would use this NSX since it hasnt been raced in years... Hopefully, the current JGTC NSX's are on the game.
