Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gran Turismo 4 - Under The Hood, Driving The Prologue

Posted by simoniker on from the engines-revving-furiously dept.

Thanks to Motor Trend for their feature documenting the extreme attention to detail being lavished on Gran Turismo 4 for PlayStation 2, as the franchise, which "has sold more than 30 million units worldwide", gears up to a 2004 release for this latest iteration. According to the article, "between 20,000 and 30,000 digital photographs are taken" to faithfully reproduce the real-life racetracks used in the game, and there's also a behind the scenes feature on a 150-vehicle capture session in Japan, each car being "systematically studied and logged so the design team could faithfully recreate [it in-game]." Elsewhere, 1UP has a hands-on look at the Japan-only Gran Turismo 4 Prologue, a budget-priced preview which they consider "isn't worth the purchase for any except the most obsessive Gran Turismo fans." Update: 12/12 16:18 GMT by S : Another hands-on look at GT4 Prologue from Game Informer adds detail and corrects a couple of inaccuracies.

34 comments

  1. Re:WARNING /. Lies about "Anonymous" JIHAD tsarkon by Ske · · Score: 0

    Dude, you need to get out more. .ske

  2. I'm buying it... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

    but give me a damn release date, already! damn NDAs with the car companies and all the important auto shows being in early january....

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  3. This is a review? by Lukey+Boy · · Score: 4, Informative
    I bought this last week and wrote about it, and the 1UP review has some bullshit that would lead me to believe they haven't played the game at all.

    For example they say there's no playing against AI racers in the demo. Um, no. Three of the five maps have optional AI racers that can be turned on via the Options menu. Even if you don't read Japanese, it's pretty easy to just test out the different options.

    1. Re:This is a review? by rhs98 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You bought the cut down version, with many cars and tracks missing. This is not the same as the final version - it costs nearly half as much!

      Anyway I found another interesting article - this one has pictures of the cars and a video feature(s) as well...

      --
      Is it a boat?
    2. Re:This is a review? by Lukey+Boy · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, I agree - it's called "Prologue" for a reason. My point was that there is competetive racing in the Prologue edition, and the 1UP review of Prologue says that there aren't.

    3. Re:This is a review? by simoniker · · Score: 1

      The 1UP review does seem to have a couple of inaccuracies in it - we added a Game Informer hands-on which seems to have the information a little more together, thanks for feedback.

  4. Re:Notable Quotes - Or why I won't buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to say "nice troll" but I don't even understand where in trollsville you get "split a simple process 8 ways"? The PS2 has 2 CPUs, not 8, and you don't split processes across CPUs anyway. This is just technobabble.

  5. Where's Ferrari? by GrahamMastaFlash · · Score: 2, Informative
    Does it bother anybody else that Ferrari won't ever let the GT games use their cars? What, are they worried that some Millionaire schmuck is going to buy the game instead of an Enzo?

    "Well, now I don't have to drop $600K anymore becuase I've got the car right here on my PS2!" Plus, I'm sure that offering girls a ride on your PS2 is just as effective as an F150.

    Wake up and smell the Espresso, Ferrari!

    1. Re:Where's Ferrari? by damien_kane · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sure that offering girls a ride on your PS2 is just as effective as an F150.

      With the trance vibrator that came with Rez, It Can...

    2. Re:Where's Ferrari? by klui · · Score: 1

      When the Dreamcast was still in full bloom, I read that Sega had an exclusive contract with Ferrari for using their cars in games by Sega RD2, creator of F355 Challenge. Don't know if this has an effect on Gran Tourismo.

    3. Re:Where's Ferrari? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      electronic arts "owns" the ferrari license

    4. Re:Where's Ferrari? by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure it still applies, as the new version of Outrun is the same way. (Also by AM2, also with Ferraris IIRC.)

      --
      There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
  6. Re:Realism? In a Gran Turismo game? by Numeric · · Score: 1

    What is the best racing simulation game have you played then?

    --
    -- ladies and gentlemen we are floating in space!
  7. Re:Realism? In a Gran Turismo game? by Chilly+Willy · · Score: 1, Funny

    "but I think I'm dangerously close to becoming a troll."

    Too late...

  8. No vehicle damage by Zed2K · · Score: 2, Informative

    The absolute worst part is the whole no vehicle damage thing. The best thing in the past games was to use the other cars to push your car around the other cars to win races. May not get you the fastest times but it did make it easy to beat other players and the cpu players.

    1. Re:No vehicle damage by Zed2K · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nothing like replying to your own. Another thing that annoyed me was the total lack of interaction with your environment. If you are in the rally courses and you slide off the course you shouldn't just bounce off those flimsy orange fence posts...you should go through it and take it down and have to get back on course. If you hit a tree it should flip you.

  9. Physics engine compromised? by nobodyman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I really like the Gran Turismo series, but the most frustrating aspect that punches a big hole in the overall immersion and sense of realism is the physics engines.

    Specifically, I'm talking about the fact that you can't crash. Sure, you hit another car and spin out.. losing time and potentially costing you the race. However, you cannot "damage" your car. No matter how hard you try, you can't flip, roll, or crumple the vehicle around a light pole. The was a design decision to satiate corporate interests (not too many car companies would be keen to see one of their cars depicted in such a way. While I can understand the decision (one of aspects that makes GT so cool is the sheer number of "real" cars you can play with), it causes unrealistic racing conditions. For example, in GT3 I wouldn't care about slamming into slight turns because I knew I would be "bounced" back on track without incident. So, I'd approach the turn at 120mph and get knocked down to 70mph, passing by the computer opponent that was safely taking the turn at 45mph. In "real life", my I'd lose a tire and possible send my car hurtling towards a terrified audience.

    I've read that GT4 will behave the same way, and that's a shame. I don't necessarily blame Sony but rather the car companies who would otherwise withhold licensing rights.

    1. Re:Physics engine compromised? by betaray · · Score: 1

      So your complaint is that they don't force you not to cheat? The real reason that they don't have damage is because of game play reasons. It's simply not fun to race an endurance race for 2 hours and on the last lap total your car.

      If you want the game to behave realistically drive realistically. Don't go slamming into corners and other cars. There's no one forcing you to go into that corner at 120mph.

    2. Re:Physics engine compromised? by hawkstone · · Score: 3, Informative
      I've read that GT4 will behave the same way

      Out of curiosity, did you read the articles? They all talk about how you used to be able to bounce off opponents and walls in GT3 to better your time, and steps have been taken to alleviate it: while it's true that there is no collision damage, there are penalties for bumping too hard into either. I'll quote the GameInformer article.

      Also, for all of you out there who go used to driving like a madman and slamming into walls and other cars, you're about to get a heavy schooling. Major impacts with walls and other cars will penalize you and after the collision you'll be forced to drive at a top speed of 50 km/hour for 10 seconds. So, you may want to think twice before using some poor opponent as a spring on a tight corner.
    3. Re:Physics engine compromised? by nobodyman · · Score: 1

      I skimmed... does that count? Apparently not, as I didn't catch the penalty info.

      I dunno how I feel about that. I suppose it's better than the "bouncing" effect but the real solution would be to have your car be damaged, thus forcing you into a pit stop or perhaps just ending your race totally.

    4. Re:Physics engine compromised? by hawkstone · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, I'm a little torn as well. Take GT3's SSR11, for example. On those two 90-deg left-right corners, hitting a wall can be disastrous without any additional penalty. But on some of the longer, smoother corners (esp. the 180's), hitting the wall is almost guaranteed to make you go faster. So in one case there's no need to make life worse for you, and in the other, it's almost a necessity.

      To be fair, though, even in GT3 there was some concept of damage -- the tires. Wall-bouncing could force you to pit a lot more often than normal. I find it hard to criticise any decision Polyphony has made, simply because the results have been spectacular as a whole, but I think just a progressive damage model -- just a little bit of texture modification, a little loss in HP/handling, and keeping the extra tire wear, might have been a good addition, and a little less suspension-of-disbelief reducing.

    5. Re:Physics engine compromised? by Zoshnell · · Score: 1

      Actually, my friend and I were playing GT2, and we were racing a gto and a cobra. In one of the Special Stages, I came out of a hairpin turn ahead of him, and he hit me weird, flew up a bit, and was stuck vertical for a bit, then righted itself. Not quite a flip or roll, but was funny as hell. I think he still has the recording somewhere...

      --
      "Do you suppose that's why God lives in the Heavens? Because he lives in fear of His creations?" - Steve Buscemi
  10. mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    maybe that's why they don't make the game for PCs, as someone would more than likely mod the game to make the cars damageable...

    1. Re:mod parent up! by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      maybe they don't make the game for the pc, because lots of the optimizations are written in assembly, and native PS2 code doesn't port well at all.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  11. Re:Realism? In a Gran Turismo game? by Stubtify · · Score: 1
    Ever play street rods 2?

    If that was updated I'd see it as being a great simulation. There was damage, parts became used over time as well as your car could become wrecked.

  12. Re:WARNING /. Lies about "Anonymous" JIHAD tsarkon by bogie · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'd have to say some of this must be true, at least regarding getting banned from mod points. I've been a Slashdot user for years now. I've also had good Karma forever now. I had mod points once, used them well, and then never get mod points again.

    From what I understand that's not supposed to happen. So they are either tracking posts I made as a AC where I Trolled a bit, or they blackballed me forever for something I modded up or down.

    I never browse at -1 anymore so for all I know this post just gets posted 50 times every day, but regardless there has to be something behind the scenes going on.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  13. Re:Notable Quotes - Or why I won't buy it by quinkin · · Score: 1
    Well let me make it a bit clearer.

    I was referring to the vector processing units, of which there are two, and each of which "...perform multiply/accumulate operations on 4 single precision floats simultaneously with single cycle throughput."

    Or if you prefer: "You must design before coding.
    Lots of people have said this about PS2 - you cannot just sit down and code away and expect high speed programs as a result. You have to plan and design your code around the hardware and that requires insight into how the machine works."

    If you want a reference I quoted from here. But to be honest if you can't find a thousand pages on this topic you cant type google....

    Thanks for your uninformed comments.

    Q.

    --
    Insert Signature Here