Do you think Gran Turismo would be better if developed for the PC?

[athlonix]

my thoughts exactly, shows how little some people know.

my PC cost me £1000. but it's a AMD Phenom 965 4 Core, 4 gig DDR3 memory, 3 terrabytes hard disk, ATi 5870 with 1gig dedicated memory graphics card, monster. the PS3 looks it's age compared to a proper PC. i can tell you here and now, it's looks FAR better than any console available.

 

[SavageEvil]

There is not a game made that requires dual graphics cards. Likewise you can play Crysis on a 4 year old rig. You just can't pimp out its graphics to the maximum. Infact if you played Crysis on a 4 year old rig it'd look something like a console game...



If that's your two cents. Take them back. The most expensive category on the Tom's Hardware Graphics card list is $410 and up, and everything in that category is insane overkill for a modern game. All you need is a 100 to 200 dollar card.

As I said before a PC running at full tilt, PS3 is running at full tilt you can't dial back it's settings. So why allow a PC game to not run at full tilt for the comparison to be reasonable? Consoles do not have changeable setting for you to turn off AA and reduce the LOD, you get a streamlined game that either works when it left the press or doesn't. PC games you can fiddle with to get it to work on your system if it isn't up to the task of running the game at full tilt. I wonder what the requirements are for Crysis 2 running at full tilt? My point is dev for PC games add too much and to run the game the way they do, you'd need a top of the line pc. Graphics cards aren't the only issue, you'd also need a motherboard and CPU stocked with enough RAM to run and keep pace with your GPU. When I say full tilt I mean at the highest settings that the developers for some odd reason chose to include, how many of you can run many of the modern games at those settings? PS3 and 360 always run their games at full tilt, so which PC games can your PC run at full tilt and have nary a problem doing so?

 

[pm1902]

Of course it would run better. PC's absolutely stomp consoles in terms of performance. A typical sub-1k PC will have a 1gb+ video card, 3-4GHz processor and 4+gb of ram, whereas a PS3 has a 256mb video card, 3.2GHz processor, 256mb ram. Playing any game on a PC is way, way better. It may cost 2-3x more, but it does a ton more as well.

BUT!! The PC community is small compared to console gaming, and piracy is much more rampant. For example, by December of last year Modern Warfare 2 had sold over 6 million copies on the PS3 and Xbox 360, but less than 200k on the PC. They sold over 30x more games to console users. GT5 on PC would sell even less than that, so it would hardly be worth it at all to port it to PC.

I don't think PD has the budget to port GT5 over to PC because they would only sell a fraction of what they will on the PS3.

 

[Tenacious D]

It doesn not cost £5000 for a pc to spank PS3 graphics. Infact my computer cost me around about £700 and I have yet to see a game which looks better on PS3.

Well, I do like the graphics on Battlefield 2, and Crysis does look decent, but neither are going to fool me into thinking I'm watching real life like GT5 or Prologue replays do.

Pixel count and resolution do not equal better graphics.

On top of that, the naysayers are right.

• Windoze is a resource hog. There really does need to be a "gaming OS," like Linux or something.
• PC architecture is all over the map. Between this and issues with Windows, this is why coding for PC is a toothache, and most likely a huge reason why there are patches with every PC game release.
• Piracy and viruses. Kids are naughty.
• Even you said it yourself. You have to spend two or three times as much to get a similar PC gaming rig over a PS3. You just can't "code to the hardware" like you can on a console, or even a Mac, so the only way to get a PC game to look ultimately awesome is to throw power at it with graphic card and CPU upgrades, or whole new gaming rigs. And that's expensive.

I quit the whole PC rig tail chase years ago and am much happier playing Playstation games. I'll upgrade every five years or so when the quantum leap is worth $800 or more, and it's usually $900 or more. And the PC games that have remotely interested me since the year 2000 are ten or so. I like a couple of shooters, my Anarchy Online MMO and a couple of racing sims - but you can have iRacing and your up to $200 a year rental fee. Mostly it's Playstation all the way. The games are just better and more fun.

 

[dmeech]

I got away from PC gaming long ago becuase its draining on the wallet trying to keep up with the most up to date technology in order to run the latest releases. Were GT released on PC, in order to run it to its full potential youd need a pretty expensive setup Id imagine. I already spent more than I would have liked to on a PS3 and TV just for Gran Tursimo. Sure a PC is more versatile, but I cant be arsed to go out and upgrade my RAM, graphics card and processor as Patches and expansion packs are released.

Sure youre ot going to get the most ground breaking graphics on a console but I prefer the set it and forget it way in that I get the console and dont have to be concerned whether or not the game I just bought will be able to run properly.

Plus im diggin the PS3, being able to stream music and videos from my laptop is nice.

 

[code_kev]

"Well, I do like the graphics on Battlefield 2, and Crysis does look decent, but neither are going to fool me into thinking I'm watching real life like GT5 or Prologue replays do."

To make a racing game look realistic is MUCH MUCH easier then say an FPS. Cars have few moving parts, less to animate etc. Just get the lighting and detail right, and you pretty much have it cracked. OFC there is a skill to it.

"Pixel count and resolution do not equal better graphics."

This is true too.

Pc gaming is not that expensive anymore. My pc is old yet can still play all recent games at 1080p. Sigh, wish GT5 sounded like GTR Evo

 

[Aureus]

As I said before a PC running at full tilt, PS3 is running at full tilt you can't dial back it's settings. So why allow a PC game to not run at full tilt for the comparison to be reasonable? Consoles do not have changeable setting for you to turn off AA and reduce the LOD, you get a streamlined game that either works when it left the press or doesn't. PC games you can fiddle with to get it to work on your system if it isn't up to the task of running the game at full tilt.

The.. hell? Did you fail basic logic or something? You're setting up a false premise. Its like comparing a horse to a modern ALMS Race Car and saying you can only compare them at full tilt and no other comparison is valid. PCs and PC gaming is versatile, that is the strength. You are also not required in anyway to run games on a PC at full tilt, that is one of the strengths of the PC. The latest greatest prettiest graphics are there, if and only if you want them. Gameplay does not change depending on which level of AA you pick.

You are behaving as if having choice is a bad thing.

My point is dev for PC games add too much and to run the game the way they do, you'd need a top of the line pc. Graphics cards aren't the only issue, you'd also need a motherboard and CPU stocked with enough RAM to run and keep pace with your GPU. When I say full tilt I mean at the highest settings that the developers for some odd reason chose to include, how many of you can run many of the modern games at those settings?

First, you don't need a CPU 'stocked with enough ram', RAM doesn't work that way. Second, games are GPU limited, not CPU limited. Your CPU can be a dual core anything and you don't have to worry about it. Nor do you need the latest and greatest hardware for a PC game, the gameplay does not change depending on which level of AA or Resolution you select.

And who cares how many games I can run at the maximum settings? A reasonable question would be how many games can I run that look better than the PS3.

PS3 and 360 always run their games at full tilt, so which PC games can your PC run at full tilt and have nary a problem doing so?

Again, who cares? The question is "which PC games can I run that look better than a console game", the answer is "All of them that can look better."

Well, I do like the graphics on Battlefield 2, and Crysis does look decent, but neither are going to fool me into thinking I'm watching real life like GT5 or Prologue replays do.

Uh... I'm racing a nice lil Mk IV Gt around Laguna Seca at the moment. I've been there many times in my life. I've seen a whole host of old GT40 race cars go around Laguna Seca. This game looks nothing like real life and if its fooling you into thinking you're watching real life you are rather gullible. The trees at Laguna Seca are not made of cardboard and the hills around the track do not have big triangular flat spots. GT5 only looks 'realistic' when taking photos from particular angles of particular cars in particular limited settings. The tracks themselves honestly look pretty terrible and are no where near on the level of the premium cars.

 

[code_kev]

It's like saying, which is more realistic? A blocky photo of a tree ala Gran Turismo used as a flat texture, or a fully 3D tree which sways in the real time depending on the direction of the wind. The flat photo texture might look more realistic in some ways, but the fact that it's flat, doesn't move, is blocky etc spoils the effect.

 

[Ride]

I think GT would be better if Kaz wasn't the guy heading the project.

I think there's a game like that for the xbox 360.

 

[Ch0zander]

It wouldn't be better, it would be on another level!

 

[GT Motion]

Dude, you're posting a forum where people nerd out over which steering wheel to use and how to build custom racing sim cockpits.

The amount of general ignorance in this thread about PC Gaming hardware, costs and the status of the PC Gaming industry just makes me a bit sad.

I have built two PC's for sim racing and I can tell you it costs a pretty penny to be able to run the sim correctly with shadows and graphics maxed out.

By "nerd out" I meant spending extra time and $ to intensify the experience as opposed to normal people who just buy the game and play, maybe get a wheel at the most.

 

[GT Motion]

It wouldn't be better, it would be on another level!

Thats if they built it for monster PC's which would never happen because they wouldn't sell that many copies since noone would be able to run it except people with heavy built PC's. Also, it would never have the content it has on PS because the budget would be cut into a fraction of what they spent on GT5 since sales would be in the few hundred thousand max. Opposed to the multimillion's of copies already sold for PS3.

 

[SavageEvil]

The.. hell? Did you fail basic logic or something? You're setting up a false premise. Its like comparing a horse to a modern ALMS Race Car and saying you can only compare them at full tilt and no other comparison is valid. PCs and PC gaming is versatile, that is the strength. You are also not required in anyway to run games on a PC at full tilt, that is one of the strengths of the PC. The latest greatest prettiest graphics are there, if and only if you want them. Gameplay does not change depending on which level of AA you pick.

You are behaving as if having choice is a bad thing.



First, you don't need a CPU 'stocked with enough ram', RAM doesn't work that way. Second, games are GPU limited, not CPU limited. Your CPU can be a dual core anything and you don't have to worry about it. Nor do you need the latest and greatest hardware for a PC game, the gameplay does not change depending on which level of AA or Resolution you select.

And who cares how many games I can run at the maximum settings? A reasonable question would be how many games can I run that look better than the PS3.



Again, who cares? The question is "which PC games can I run that look better than a console game", the answer is "All of them that can look better."

I'm pointing out the fact that you are basically trying to compare 5 year old tech with brand new tech, maybe you need to understand basic logic. Gameplay does not change when you run a game at full tilt as opposed to running it scaled back? Really? Im guessing that you can run Quake 2 at 120fps and it's just as easy to play running at 30fps right?

When PS3 and 360 first launched, how many of your PC's at the time could run visuals comparable? Since right now this the state of things as you probably have a GPU that was released within the past two years so it just reverses things from when these systems launched. Seems fair doesn't it yes?

Really RAM for your CPU doesn't change anything when you have to run a game? Windows would like a word with you, the instant you need to run a game go check how much RAM you PC starts snatching up. A dual core CPU by default needs a gig of RAM to run comfortably, what kind of PC are you using, some fantasy machine or something? My laptop is 3 year old AMD Turion 64 X2 and it has 2Gigs of RAM and a measly GeForce 7150 GPU, running on Vista and believe you me thing this boots up fast but the OS is a resource hog, like all other windows OS's. I barely know about PC gaming, but seems like you know little about PC's at all, since you seem to think a game is run by the GPU on it's own. Ever wonder what minimum PC recommended specs are for? Made me chortle there. Nothing wrong with having a choice, but for comparisons sake a PS3 and 360 can run all their games at their absolute maximum, can you do that with all your PC games? I'm pretty sure that i will get a no to the majority of games since a lot of dev's run games in ludicrous levels of detail and very few people have a gaming rigs that can support. It's not a choice thing it's a parity thing, read and understand my angle.

The original post is pretty dumb in and of itself, obviously it will look better and run better, if newer hardware couldn't then someone needs to quit the hardware business. Any game on PS3 can look better on a PC, simple fact PC has resolutions that PS3 can only dream of and GPUs with 4x the RAM, seriously who is comparing a Lamborghini to a Hummer here?

A better question would be could they get GT5 to run on a PC comparable to a PS3? The original post was answered the day the newest GPU's came out after 360 launched. See PC gamers have this high and mighty attitude because PC can make such and such look better and whatever else, but the simple fact that PD can get such visuals out of this 4+ year old tech is nothing to laugh at, in fact it makes most PC devs by comparison look lazy as all they do is increase the specs of the PC needed to run their games because when they reach a bottleneck, lets toss more RAM at it or raise the clock cycles idea. Pfft! That's a whole other story, that I can't get into, but to answer the original post, Yes it would be better.

 

[alexleighton]

If the question is COULD it be better on pc, certainly yes.

Would it be better? Not necessarily, considering the high cost of developing GT5 was justified with PS3 sales figures, pc games don't tend to sell as well, and thus would have a smaller budget.

Sony also can pump money into this franchise, because it can singlehandedly sell consoles as well. With that comes accessories, blu-ray movies and all the other Sony gizmos people with PS3s tend to buy at some point.

Of course, a bigger budget doesn't mean a better game, but it is doubtful that the talent working on GT would be there if it was a pc franchise.

Then there are scaling, piracy and all the other fun issues that come with developing for pc, I think in the real world a pc GT game just wouldn't be as good. Modding GT would be fun though, I mean like eating cheesecake in a Dodge Viper on a closed course while watching a fireworks factory explode fun.

 

[gtracedriver]

If it was developed for PS4 it would obviously be great

PS3 is good enough it is not to be blamed with more poweful hardware obviously they can do more. But GT5 should be more polished. Hopefully they will fix the bug and add more cars, tracks. Or they will start making GT6 on PS3 and release it in next 2-3yrs.

 

[Ch0zander]

Thats if they built it for monster PC's which would never happen because they wouldn't sell that many copies since noone would be able to run it except people with heavy built PC's. Also, it would never have the content it has on PS because the budget would be cut into a fraction of what they spent on GT5 since sales would be in the few hundred thousand max. Opposed to the multimillion's of copies already sold for PS3.

Well my PC turns 3 years now and it cost me 1500 then and still can run any game on max (GTA4 not included) with max graphics on 720p. You can get the same performance now with 800 or so. Ps3 was 600 when it came out. Not a big difference, Still at least a million people bought ps3 just for GT5.

Have you ever heard of World of Warcraft? Do you think it would have 70X more players on Ps3, because that's your assumption of the difference what would happen to Gt5 on PC. It would have 70X less players.

Have you thought of the fact that almost everybody owns a PC? Many people would just upgrade it to run GT.

And at last, the content is not a problem, because on PC you can create content yourselves.

Take for example GTA4, it's a great game on consoles, but it's an unbelievable game on PC with all the community-made content. Real shame that it has been coded so resource-greedy, that only 1/100 of PC's can run it properly.

 

[Masi_23]

Gran Turismo will take 10 years to make because Kaz will realise, sky is the limit... "Mandatory 5 Terabyte install. Please wait!"

 

[Big Ron]

I swear, you will never see any complicated game like GT5 on a PC.

I have a Q6600 Quadcore, 4 GB RAM and a 512MB HD4850 and my computer isn´t even able to run Crysis smotth on maximum settings.

So you will need to invest 800 to 1000 € to get a really good computer, that can handle most games on max setting.

The problem is, that the complexity and content of GT5 need to be performed and optimized for 500 different CPU-types, 5000 different GPU-types and 1 Million different RAM-types (the numbers are just jokes).

All in all, it would nearly need a decade to optimize such a big game to run smooth on nearly every possible PC-configuration.

 

[code_kev]

"I have a Q6600 Quadcore, 4 GB RAM and a 512MB HD4850 and my computer isn´t even able to run Crysis smotth on maximum settings."

You have a graphics card worth about £50. So no, you can't play crysis on max. However, as I also have an 4850 but a worse cpu(X2 3.2 black) and I can play it pretty close to max, I'm not sure what you have to complain about.

I'm not sure what you mean by "complicated" games, elaborate.

 

[Big Ron]

"I have a Q6600 Quadcore, 4 GB RAM and a 512MB HD4850 and my computer isn´t even able to run Crysis smotth on maximum settings."

You have a graphics card worth about £50. So no, you can't play crysis on max. However, as I also have an 4850 but a worse cpu(X2 3.2 black) and I can play it pretty close to max, I'm not sure what you have to complain about.

That´s right, but you forgot the fact, that Crysis is two years older than my graphic card and it still can´t handle it.

And "complicated" means extensive in content

Think about (how slow this card is or how ****** the game is programmed)

 

[Aureus]

I'm pointing out the fact that you are basically trying to compare 5 year old tech with brand new tech, maybe you need to understand basic logic.

Me and everyone else in this thread is doing exactly that, and that is the whole point. The PC is so far ahead there is no point in comparing the maximum to the PS3. And yet somehow there are people on this forum saying you need a 5 thousand dollar rig, or a 700 dollar graphics card to match the PS3, when all you need is an old cheap graphics card.

Gameplay does not change when you run a game at full tilt as opposed to running it scaled back? Really? Im guessing that you can run Quake 2 at 120fps and it's just as easy to play running at 30fps right?

Now you're talking about the difference between being able to run a game at all, vs running it with all the shinies. Also 30fps is generally a pretty playable frame rate. Quake II also has a better example btw. If you had 3dFX glide, the water was transparent and you could hide underneath and shoot people through it. If you didn't have Glide the water had a solid surface.

When PS3 and 360 first launched, how many of your PC's at the time could run visuals comparable? Since right now this the state of things as you probably have a GPU that was released within the past two years so it just reverses things from when these systems launched. Seems fair doesn't it yes?

That is exactly how it works. When a Console comes out it tends to outperform a similarly priced PC. That is also in part due to consoles being loss leaders for selling games.

Really RAM for your CPU doesn't change anything when you have to run a game?

I believe I said RAM doesn't work "like that", referring to how you described it. I did not say it doesn't have an effect.

I barely know about PC gaming, but seems like you know little about PC's at all, since you seem to think a game is run by the GPU on it's own.

I've built my last 4 computers. The GPU handles the vast majority of the work of a modern game. Crunching polygons etc... the CPU handles much less of the work-load. The GPU is the bottleneck on almost any system made in the last 4 years and you can take a cheap dual core and mate it with a brand new high end 6870 and see nearly the same results as mating that same 6870 with a brand new CoreI7.

 

[code_kev]

Crysis is an obscene looking game even now, it has a draw distance of about a billionty, incredible levels of detail and effects. Hell, it even does refraction when you look through the surface of the water.

Thing is, you can knock the settings down a little and it still looks better then anything on both consoles.

Also, your card was released 6 months or so afterwards. It was never a top end card either. A good un though, that's why I got one.

 

[Aureus]

That´s right, but you forgot the fact, that Crysis is two years older than my graphic card and it still can´t handle it.

And "complicated" means extensive in content

Think about (how slow this card is or how ****** the game is programmed)

Crysis was built and designed to make systems cry. The most high end technology around when it was made didn't stand a chance of rendering it at maximum settings. That was half the point of Crysis. A modern high end system still has trouble with that game.

Edit:

For Reference. Crysis made NASA supercomputers curl up in a little ball and cry. http://blog.videosift.com/MarineGunrock/NASA-comes-close-to-running-Crysis-at-maximum-settings

This has been a real journey for the whole team...even a few months ago we weren't able to put the sliders up past half before it crippled the system. Now we're playing for five, ten minutes at a time at full resolution with no demonstrative frame lag.

 

[Ch0zander]

I swear, you will never see any complicated game like GT5 on a PC.

I have a Q6600 Quadcore, 4 GB RAM and a 512MB HD4850 and my computer isn´t even able to run Crysis smotth on maximum settings.

So you will need to invest 800 to 1000 € to get a really good computer, that can handle most games on max setting.

The problem is, that the complexity and content of GT5 need to be performed and optimized for 500 different CPU-types, 5000 different GPU-types and 1 Million different RAM-types (the numbers are just jokes).

All in all, it would nearly need a decade to optimize such a big game to run smooth on nearly every possible PC-configuration.

Do you really think they optimize every game on every single PC configuration?
That's whay there are DirectX 11, OpenGL and other coding languages. Of course it would be difficult, because they would have to start from the scratch, but I think consoles and PC's will come relatively close hardwarewise during the next-gen of consoles, so it certainly would be possible.

Still I think the clear advantages for the game being on Pc are the raw number-crushing power and customization possibilities.

The graphics in Gt5 are just fine, so PS3 has enough power from my opinion, so I think many would be happy if PD would implement a creation centre app running on pc, where you could model your own car, make your own liveries and create your own tracks.

My personal dream would be an program where you could make your own premium models by taking tons of pictures and recording the engine sound of a car and uploading them into the program and then it would render them to a 3d model or so. It really wouldn't be so difficult to make, they just need to give clear instructions of the places you have to photograph and so on.

P.S: It's because of your lacking GPU (Crysis doesn't know how to use Dx 11 and stuff) you can't run crysis on full. Use a lower res and low aa settings and it should run just fine. BTW, it's still the most beatiful game ever made, on max settings of course.

 

[Ch0zander]

Crysis was built and designed to make systems cry. The most high end technology around when it was made didn't stand a chance of rendering it at maximum settings. That was half the point of Crysis. A modern high end system still has trouble with that game.

I bought a 8800 GTX + Crysis bundle and with 40% overclocking it runs it 45 fps on max graphics 720p and 0x aa.

 

[KidSnipe]

Reading this thread, I can now understand why people are satisfied with GT5. They are completely ignorant to the better technologies around them. $5k for a good gaming computer? People actually think this? All you need is $1000 maximum and you'll be able to play any modern games on the highest settings. The processing power of PCs is so much higher than that of the PS3 that we shouldn't even be comparing the two. If GT5 were made for the PC, it wouldn't have half the problems that are plaguing it at the moment.

 

[Big Ron]

Yeah, and the ignorance of PC-players is, that they have no idea of developing games. They are always talking about PC-power, but have no idea how hard it is to use it in complex engines.

 

[realwerewolf]

I swear, you will never see any complicated game like GT5 on a PC.

I have a Q6600 Quadcore, 4 GB RAM and a 512MB HD4850 and my computer isn´t even able to run Crysis smotth on maximum settings.

So you will need to invest 800 to 1000 € to get a really good computer, that can handle most games on max setting.

The problem is, that the complexity and content of GT5 need to be performed and optimized for 500 different CPU-types, 5000 different GPU-types and 1 Million different RAM-types (the numbers are just jokes).

All in all, it would nearly need a decade to optimize such a big game to run smooth on nearly every possible PC-configuration.

The ignorance in your post and this thrwead is scary. There are already vastly more complex games then Gt5 on PC, and no, it wont cost much. The tech ignorance here is amazing. A good gaming rig wont set u back more then 600 these days and last several years. PC has a heck of a lot more power to do complex games, get real.

As for the Pc = no sales argument, = BULL, Steam is huge, and many games still sell well on PC. Nothing is stopping them from releasing on PC and PS3. Kaz was complaining about the PS3 hardware, why Japanese devs are so blind to the PC is beyond me, Pc would solve that issue.

 

[Aureus]

I bought a 8800 GTX + Crysis bundle and with 40% overclocking it runs it 45 fps on max graphics 720p and 0x aa.

Exactly , and Crysis supports 2048p, insane levels of aa and all sorts of other fun tricks.

 

[code_kev]

"Yeah, and the ignorance of PC-players is, that they have no idea of developing games. They are always talking about PC-power, but have no idea how hard it is to use it in complex engines. "

I guess we are blessed to have you with your in depth knowledge of pc engines and game dev. The results speak for themselves, look at the games.

Tbh I forget what your original argument was, but you're probably wrong.