Right, I'm sure we all know that GT4 AI is braindead. That it makes no effort to avoid you whatsoever, that it always tries to push you off the road, that it is ridiculously fast in some corners (often bouncing into the guardrails as well) et cetera. But I wonder if it's universally known that PD has also *deliberately* programmed it to cheat. First, a short story recap: so there I was, entering the Japanese 80's competition, ready to sweep the field in the '89 Skyline GT-R 4WD even on N2 tyres. By comparing several 80's cars I was planning to see which one would give the most fun competition, and I wanted to start with an 'easy' one first to see the lay of the land, so to speak. Well, no dice. The AI ran away from me like there's no tomorrow, producing 'hare' after 'hare' which got miles ahead of the rest of the field, time after time. Didn't matter if it was a small 140BHP low-horsepower car like the '86 MR2: they all acted like they had near 400 BHP. So far, I had thought this was a random occurrence; often you get a rabbit, sometimes you do not. Bad enough, since it's not very realistic (especially for underpowered cars) but then the GT4 AI is known to be bad. Leading to the well-known habit of having to hunt for a good lineup. Which, in the end, I found I had to resort to as well. After a while I found one in which the 4WD Galant wouldn't run too far ahead in the first lap, it seemed. In the end, after trying a few times I got ahead of it and won, but it was far less easy than it should have been, given there were no other GT-R Skylines in the field. And then, in doing so I started to notice a pattern. One that seemed familiar, and vaguely disturbing.** Ran the field again to confirm my suspicions, and they were. The AI is deliberately programmed to cheat, to become artificially fast if certain conditions are met. It turns out that the 'rabbit' or 'hare' AI isn't so random at all. I found (perhaps others have noticed as well) that if you manage to pass the lead AI early on, you can stay in the lead fairly easily. The (former) lead car will not get ahead of the field all that much, in general, in my test case about one second or so. But when I deliberately put my Skyline right behind the leading Galant and stayed there as if I was giving chase, it suddenly turned into an outright rocket. After a few laps we were miles ahead of the field (about six seconds) and I had to drive much faster than I had to do the other times, when I got in the lead early on. *In other words, PD deliberately programmed the AI to cheat and become artificially faster in such conditions - to make sure you always stay behind.* Or at least have to drive like a maniac to get past. It has nothing to do with your driving performance in itself; it just gets an unreal speed boost when you're still behind. This is akin to the infamous "Rubberband AI" in more unrealistic games like Need For Speed, where the AI almost always gets an artifical advantage to stay ahead or catch up. Once you get ahead, on the other hand, the AI's speed stays fairly consistent. I'm sure the general idea was to "put up a challenge" and such fluff (as if the AI doesn't already do that by putting up faster lineups if you show up in a fast car yourself. I'm sure there are dimwits out there who even support such a fake speedup, ignoring that it's technically no problem at all to have the AI zip around an entire lap in 0.2 seconds, to make you lose no matter what). In the end though, the AI was programmed to cheat and suddenly make itself artificially faster than otherwise (after all, if I got in the lead and get away from the field early on, this didn't happen - measured this several times, and the AI's behaviour was easily repeatable). Doesn't matter if it's a small city car: suddenly it will become just as fast as your big-bore GT-R and you'll need a bigger turbo or nitro to get by. Needless to say, this is totally unrealistic and a deliberate ploy by PD to have the AI cheat, speedwise. I don't know about others, but personally I find this deeply offensive (especially in the past people paid good money for GT4 and in return, they get shafted by the already boneheaded AI coders - deliberately) and unacceptable. If KY and/or the AI's programmers would stand right in front of me right now, I'd punch them in the face. Hard. And I'm not even kidding. Because this is not only dumb AI, it's also been deliberately programmed to fake things and make human gamers lose. That wouldn't have been quite so bad if this had been a pc game and you'd be able to have a patch come out to correct things - but in a PS2 game that's just not possible. The cheat has been deliberately put in there by PD, and it will never go away. In other words: PD delivered a cheating game here, they knew it, and made gamers pay real money for it. Totally. Freaking. Unacceptable. Imho at least. Personally, in the future, before I even *consider* looking at GT5, I'll now make darn sure I know that PD didn't deliberately mess up the AI - again. **A bit of history lesson for the newcomer drivers: In 1998, when Grand Prix Legends arrived as the now-legendary Godfather of serious racing sims, it came with a system called 'Global Hype'. This made the AI slow at first to match your beginner laptimes but automatically speed up as you got faster. Doesn't sound so bad at first, - but it never stopped getting faster: no matter how good you got, you'd always end up losing since AI is always able to speed up indefinitely. Needless to say, this system was almost universally hated and neutralised by the gamer community through various patches later on.