Anyone else wish there were a PC version of GT4?
- Thread starter Geeky1
- 109 comments
- 7,573 views
- 229
The Emotion Engine in the PS2 is very powerful, yes; I've seen performance pegged at 6.6GFLOPs, which is very impressive, and faster than a 2.4GHz Sempron 3100+ according to SiSoft Sandra's arithmetic CPU benchmark. But the PS2 doesn't have the graphics power of even a midrange, ~$150 US graphics accelerator. And while the CPU will help make up for some of that, it won't make it up entirely.
Also, I'm fairly sure that the PS2's graphics accelerator is not capable of the kind of visual effects that DX9-class GPUs are.
Ultimately, while the Emotion Engine in the PS2 is very, very fast, the performance of the whole package will NEVER match a high end or even a midrange PC. The PS2 only has 32MB of RAM guys- and that's used for both the graphics and the AI and physics calculations. Any halfway decent PC today has at least 1GB of system RAM, plus at least 64MB of graphics memory. And windows and program overhead doesn't use enough RAM to make up for the fact that the PC has 32x more RAM; a fresh boot of Windows XP with AVG Anti-Virus only uses ~128MB... leaving 768 for a game. Versus 32mb of shared RAM.
If you think the PS2 is capable of playing a graphically intensive game at the same kind of resolution and image quality as even a halfway decent PC can do it at, and capable of it at a playable frame rate (30+) you're fooling yourself.
The PS2 is something like 5 years old. And it has a msrp of $150. While the Emotion Engine is very fast, the platform as a whole is way out of its league in a comparison with a decent PC.
Also, I'm fairly sure that the PS2's graphics accelerator is not capable of the kind of visual effects that DX9-class GPUs are.
Ultimately, while the Emotion Engine in the PS2 is very, very fast, the performance of the whole package will NEVER match a high end or even a midrange PC. The PS2 only has 32MB of RAM guys- and that's used for both the graphics and the AI and physics calculations. Any halfway decent PC today has at least 1GB of system RAM, plus at least 64MB of graphics memory. And windows and program overhead doesn't use enough RAM to make up for the fact that the PC has 32x more RAM; a fresh boot of Windows XP with AVG Anti-Virus only uses ~128MB... leaving 768 for a game. Versus 32mb of shared RAM.
If you think the PS2 is capable of playing a graphically intensive game at the same kind of resolution and image quality as even a halfway decent PC can do it at, and capable of it at a playable frame rate (30+) you're fooling yourself.
The PS2 is something like 5 years old. And it has a msrp of $150. While the Emotion Engine is very fast, the platform as a whole is way out of its league in a comparison with a decent PC.
- 229
Well yeah... the 6800GT in my Xeon system is a 256MB card (as are all *real* 6800GTs except for the 512MB ones that have just recently been announced and may-or-may-not be available yet)... hell, even the 9800m in the laptop is a 256MB card. I just cited 64 as the absolute bare minimum for what I would consider a "passable" graphics card today... Although you're right... to run today's games at 1280x1024 or 1600x1200 you really *need* 128MB and 256MB would be helpful (assuming your card is fast enough to use 256MB... a 256MB Radeon 9600, for example, is just a waste of money) 
//EDIT
Although I've heard that SLI doesn't really combine the video memory... I'm not real familiar with how nVidia's rendition works, because I haven't had any reason to look into it yet (no dually SLI boards) but I believe that each card renders every other frame. Which means that if you've got 512MB of textures per frame, and 2 256MB cards, you're still gonna choke.
//EDIT
Although I've heard that SLI doesn't really combine the video memory... I'm not real familiar with how nVidia's rendition works, because I haven't had any reason to look into it yet (no dually SLI boards) but I believe that each card renders every other frame. Which means that if you've got 512MB of textures per frame, and 2 256MB cards, you're still gonna choke.
- 53
all i like to say is that too many people here think they know what they are talking about...
What i love about the PS2 is, you boot and play. You can easely(auto)save and turn it off, when finished. With a PC it needs to boot 1st, then you'll have to click auto update's etc. away then you'll need to wait before the game is loaded, then start the actual game, after that you have to wait before a next/first level is loaded, then am tired and i wanna goto sleep 
With a PS2, it's handicap (not really upgradable) is also a benefit. The programmer's have to optimise the programming process to get the best results. It started with systems like the Commodore 64, just 5,25 floppy's and improving games. The handicap is, that soon or later it will be "out of date" So there will be the PS3...
Like the PS2 or the next PS3 will be in the beginning offcourse expensive, but look at your investments in a PC during that same time, that might even costs more that a PS3. The only thing with a PC is you can do other things with it aswell (Internet, documents, chatting, and offcourse proon
)But it's all about what you can afford, and are willing to spend on Hardware (PC and Playstation) But that differs for each and everyone off us..
Concerning GT4 Playstation exclusive, yess no problem. When i think i gonnah like a particular game, i buy it. When it gets on a PC, a day after the release there will be a "backup" available online. I am very fond off the GT series, and am willing to buy it cause off the quality off them. That counts for every (type of)game. But i cannot imagine that a PC version of GT4 will ad something to GT4
With a PS2, it's handicap (not really upgradable) is also a benefit. The programmer's have to optimise the programming process to get the best results. It started with systems like the Commodore 64, just 5,25 floppy's and improving games. The handicap is, that soon or later it will be "out of date" So there will be the PS3...
Like the PS2 or the next PS3 will be in the beginning offcourse expensive, but look at your investments in a PC during that same time, that might even costs more that a PS3. The only thing with a PC is you can do other things with it aswell (Internet, documents, chatting, and offcourse proon
)But it's all about what you can afford, and are willing to spend on Hardware (PC and Playstation) But that differs for each and everyone off us..Concerning GT4 Playstation exclusive, yess no problem. When i think i gonnah like a particular game, i buy it. When it gets on a PC, a day after the release there will be a "backup" available online. I am very fond off the GT series, and am willing to buy it cause off the quality off them. That counts for every (type of)game. But i cannot imagine that a PC version of GT4 will ad something to GT4
- 117
- GTP_mbavaria30s
Geeky1
i can't even begin to fathom where you thought i said a 5 year old ps2 was better than a brand new off the line machine(since it needs clarification, here it is: ps2 claims 'better' at gaming simply because of reasons other than pure gfx power and speed, etc.). Perhaps it was something to do with total inability to read and interpret information correctly. I simply said it is a much more cost effective solution to gaming for the masses than a gaming computer is(and at a much more limited and therefor creating an environment with much more efficient, much less buggy code, 90% of the time). I'm sure joe bob programmer can write the most amazing computer game with the most spiffy graphics ever, but if it requires a dual itanium setup with alienware's prototype card independant SLI technology, not very many people will buy it. You have to look beyond your gloss of LOL AL MEI FRENZ R HAEV GOOT PC LETS MUST HAEV PC GRAN TURSIMO LOOOOOOL and look at it from a market share perspective. as much as you might want to believe it, gtplanet most like does not constitute the major market share of the gran turismo sales. nor does nearly any community around x product.
ps.
the early ps2 games looked like ass compared to the latest ones because of the years of experience in figuring out how to break and bend the rules and limitations of the hardware. duh.
- 226
- Vancouver, WA
- senz0rz
You must have been so furious your fingers didn't want to type all the letters of the alphabet correctly
Gaming consoles will always be better ultimately than a PC gaming rig, as far as I can tell. I really hope you guys would understand why that is. higher RAM figures and clock speeds does not equal better games.
Gaming consoles will always be better ultimately than a PC gaming rig, as far as I can tell. I really hope you guys would understand why that is. higher RAM figures and clock speeds does not equal better games.
- 229
mbavaria... little touchy aren't we? 
I didn't direct the post at you (if I had, I would've addressed you in the post) but I don't disagree. The PS2 is a more cost effective solution. IMO the ideal solution would be if the game had been developed as a PC game and then ported to the PS2, with both the port and the PC version released at the same time.
Side note: The Itanium is a piece of crap. It's slower than hell, costs an arm and a leg (the last I checked, Itanium2s started at about $1500), and isn't even x86 compatible- it requires a special version of Windows XP or a special Linux compile to run at all.
Laorin: It depends on how you define "better" now doesn't it? The PCs will always have the upper hand in terms of raw power; higher clock speeds don't necessarily mean anything (as evidenced by the P4; don't think that just because some of my systems use P4s I don't know about their limitations) but the amount of video RAM most definately has an impact. You can only fit a certain amount of texture information in a given amount of space. 32MB is not enough RAM to run a game at 1600x1200.
It depends on what your priorities are; if all you want to do is plug the thing in, throw the disc in, and play, yes, the PS2 is better. But you give up a lot for that ease of use. And what you give up is more important to me than that ease of use is.
I didn't direct the post at you (if I had, I would've addressed you in the post) but I don't disagree. The PS2 is a more cost effective solution. IMO the ideal solution would be if the game had been developed as a PC game and then ported to the PS2, with both the port and the PC version released at the same time.Side note: The Itanium is a piece of crap. It's slower than hell, costs an arm and a leg (the last I checked, Itanium2s started at about $1500), and isn't even x86 compatible- it requires a special version of Windows XP or a special Linux compile to run at all.
Laorin: It depends on how you define "better" now doesn't it? The PCs will always have the upper hand in terms of raw power; higher clock speeds don't necessarily mean anything (as evidenced by the P4; don't think that just because some of my systems use P4s I don't know about their limitations) but the amount of video RAM most definately has an impact. You can only fit a certain amount of texture information in a given amount of space. 32MB is not enough RAM to run a game at 1600x1200.
It depends on what your priorities are; if all you want to do is plug the thing in, throw the disc in, and play, yes, the PS2 is better. But you give up a lot for that ease of use. And what you give up is more important to me than that ease of use is.
- 423
jia_zhuangall i like to say is that too many people here think they know what they are talking about...
YUP have to agree with you mate
TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU FLIPPING KNOW ABOUT PEOPLE.
ohhh lets compare this with that, no this is better then that
not mentioning anyone, ask any professional and theyll say that pc is way more powerful then console. both have their negatives and positives. some people prefer PC and vice versa. i prefer diffrent games to diffrent platforms. racing is much more fluid and fun on console (boot and play)
go try play FPS on console. it is great but it dosn'e have the smooth factor of a good keyboard and mouse.
pc is also a b***h to keep updated. but alot (and i mean a helluva alot) of PS2 game look totally crap.
like i said before i wish GT4 comes to PC but i know its never going to happen, so im content and every machine has its fans and potentials.
- 712
- U.K
Geeky1
Totally agree. It won't happen though because GT4 is Sony's flagship on the PS2 and they have a vested interest in seeing it stay on that. GT4 as a game is fantastic although I agree the graphics are, frankly, crap compared to modern PC graphics and the loading times are frustratingly slow.
GT 4 is the only game I play on the PS2 because it's so brilliant I have to have it, everything else I play is on the PC I built myself because the PS2 is so outdated compared with the PC. I dunno how many are interested in PC gaming but theres a brilliant racing game for the PC called "TOCA: Race Driver 2" in the UK (not sure what it's called in the US, it's DTM Race driver in Germany and V8 Supercars in Australia) thats a brilliant racing sim for those that are interested. To be honest it's races are better than GT4 with it's damage engine and more realistic AI and wins hands down with it's superb graphics although GT4 wins in the area of it's licences and customability of the cars. Theres also the superb Richard Burns Rally as well as the Colin McRae games that you get for the PS2 too but with better graphics.
I use a PS2 gamepad on my PC and yes you can use a Logitech wheel on it. In fact you can use the same wheel that you use on the PS2.
- 679
- Texas, USA.
I want a PC version as well..
Before GT4 came out, but even more so now. So I can easily upload replays/images/slideshows. And take as many pictures/videos/replays as I want, and have as many save games as I want.
It would be very neat.
Before GT4 came out, but even more so now. So I can easily upload replays/images/slideshows. And take as many pictures/videos/replays as I want, and have as many save games as I want.
It would be very neat.
- 679
- Texas, USA.
TOCA Race Driver 2 is called the same here in the US, It was one of the first games I bought when I got an XBOX, though it had a story line it got way too similar...All you could do was race and do some simple tuning, it did look somewhat nice though..I enjoyed for about a month.
- 26,911
- Houston, Texas, USA
- JMarine25
The last Gran Turismo-type game I remember on PS2 was Sega GT Homologation Special (I have this game). For this to be pulled off, it would be tough. This game would likely be completely modified so that the graphics quality on bigtime PCs would be equal or greater than the PS2's build. I'm not trying to say that the PS2 completely blows away PC graphics, all I'm saying is that I don't know if it's possible to do graphics up in a way so that the GT4 you're playing on your PS2 looks and feels exactly the same on the PC.
There would be some positives and negatives about this deal. The biggest positive for most people would be the ability to go online and race against 5 others in competitive online play. Imagine tournaments and all that. Another big plus to all of this is that maybe if you have an impressive graphics card, imagine a totally different version of GT4 in stunning 3D graphics. The negatives? Well, there would be several. The requirements for the PC would have to mean that if you can play Unreal 2 on your PC (look online for its requirements), you may be able to race GT4. It would be a bit of a plus, but imagine being able to add in Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini all by yourself by using 3D modelling. I think the manufacturers may or may not be happy to include all of this. Also, all sorts of PC heads will work on special patches and add-ons to meet the needs of many race fans. For example, imagine someone makes a NASCAR mod for GT4 and includes Daytona, Talladega, Bristol, Darlington, and a few other popular ovals. Patches and mods may be good for the game, sometimes NOT good for the game. Oh, and let's not forget Daytona Prototypes as well.
So from my perspective, there would be more negatives than positives. You can do almost anything on a PC, so it may open up a world of endless possibilities both good and bad. While it is a tempting thought, for some reasons, it is likely not to happen at all.
There would be some positives and negatives about this deal. The biggest positive for most people would be the ability to go online and race against 5 others in competitive online play. Imagine tournaments and all that. Another big plus to all of this is that maybe if you have an impressive graphics card, imagine a totally different version of GT4 in stunning 3D graphics. The negatives? Well, there would be several. The requirements for the PC would have to mean that if you can play Unreal 2 on your PC (look online for its requirements), you may be able to race GT4. It would be a bit of a plus, but imagine being able to add in Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini all by yourself by using 3D modelling. I think the manufacturers may or may not be happy to include all of this. Also, all sorts of PC heads will work on special patches and add-ons to meet the needs of many race fans. For example, imagine someone makes a NASCAR mod for GT4 and includes Daytona, Talladega, Bristol, Darlington, and a few other popular ovals. Patches and mods may be good for the game, sometimes NOT good for the game. Oh, and let's not forget Daytona Prototypes as well.
So from my perspective, there would be more negatives than positives. You can do almost anything on a PC, so it may open up a world of endless possibilities both good and bad. While it is a tempting thought, for some reasons, it is likely not to happen at all.
