I very much doubt this will get authorised as it will provide a prime resource for all things bad regarding GT4 but, here goes anyways...
GT4 has good graphics, probably the best PD could get from the very much obselete PS2 (cf current PC's and the GFX capability, texture mapping etc) but we are still limited to 6 player fields, lack of depth of field etd because the platform cannot cope with the programmers scope.
Other than that, GT4 sucks ass over GT3.
Why? Here's my opinion on some annoying 'features'...
A-Spec points - Why where they included?
To increase playability?
To indicate the level of challenge against the corresponding field?
For one-up-man-ship?
Well, I beleive if they had been implemented correctly, they would have acheived the first two goals but, alas, due to poor programming, they only provide brag-a-bility. I have been in many races where 100+ A-Spec points have been MUCH easier to win the 10- A-Spec points. Whatever the formula for calculating points, it does not reflect the difficulty of the race (which presumably was the intention)
B-Spec points?
And the reason for inclusion is....
Other than to provide a way out (as in get the concole to race for you rather that make you suffeR) of the monotany of poor endurance races (why have TWO 24hr La Sarthe races AND a 24hr 'Ring race?) I can see no rationale for there inclusion into the game. It's not like you can 'programme' the driver to stop every x laps, or start slow to save tyres due to heavy fuel load, then push on in the final stages.... B-spec points appear to me to be a simple cop-out on PD's behalf to qualify the inclusion of many low-enjoyability races.
Too many manufacturers competitions added simply to expand the game without any thought to the competition, eligability, or prize car. e.g. to enter the Citreon manufacturers race, you need a Citreon 2CV Type A '54. And the grand prize of winning this prestigous race.... ooh, ANOTHER Type A '54. WHY!!!! Admitedlly mine was a shocking Salmon Pink colour which I would not have otherwise bought, but hardly worth the time nor the effort.
NOS
Was this just another late addition without any forthought... it certainly had no programming plan. Consumption of NOS would occur regardless of speed. If the tanks are set to deliver a certain rate of NOS, this would be in volume per second. However, the program has is set to deliver volume per distance travelled. Want to test it... park a car, any car, with the nose perpendicular to a crash barrier. Accellerate fully and NOS-away to your hearts content, safe in the knowledge your tank will be equally full at the end of the test as the start - i gave up after 25 minutes of full NOS delivery in a 2CV!.
NOTE. This has major implications for low BHP cars... you can permanantly provide full NOS to a low BHP car for (say) a 3 lap race round Tsukuba whereas the entire tank would be used by the R92CP in one dash up the Tokyo straight!
AI
I have seen many posts regarding the lack of AI and I will admit it is very poor. One thing I have noticed on numerous occasions is that the AI reacts very well providing you are within a close proximity to the car behind you. However, if you are significntly infront of the trailing car, and you brake early to enable you to exit the corner quickly by flattening the exit angle, you will often get shunted. To my mind the AI is unable to keep track of cars over a set distance ahead.
Addmitedly, none of these 'advancements' were included in GT3 but, in my opinion, all merely illustrate why GT3 was a planned development whilst GT4 was a rushed shipment. Why rushed, you decide.. Sony, accountants, who knows. But sadly, for me, all the major additions in GT4 over GT3 have merely illustrated PD's lack of programming power/foresite or knowledge of requirements.
It appears that GT4 needed to PS3 platform to provide all PD wanted. Given the lack of processing power in the PS2, we had to suffer little more than an expansion to GT3 in a new guise. Has such an anticipated game, with such a fan base and such prior credability been such a let down?
Your opinions/inclusions/views awaited, Weez
GT4 has good graphics, probably the best PD could get from the very much obselete PS2 (cf current PC's and the GFX capability, texture mapping etc) but we are still limited to 6 player fields, lack of depth of field etd because the platform cannot cope with the programmers scope.
Other than that, GT4 sucks ass over GT3.
Why? Here's my opinion on some annoying 'features'...
A-Spec points - Why where they included?
To increase playability?
To indicate the level of challenge against the corresponding field?
For one-up-man-ship?
Well, I beleive if they had been implemented correctly, they would have acheived the first two goals but, alas, due to poor programming, they only provide brag-a-bility. I have been in many races where 100+ A-Spec points have been MUCH easier to win the 10- A-Spec points. Whatever the formula for calculating points, it does not reflect the difficulty of the race (which presumably was the intention)
B-Spec points?
And the reason for inclusion is....
Other than to provide a way out (as in get the concole to race for you rather that make you suffeR) of the monotany of poor endurance races (why have TWO 24hr La Sarthe races AND a 24hr 'Ring race?) I can see no rationale for there inclusion into the game. It's not like you can 'programme' the driver to stop every x laps, or start slow to save tyres due to heavy fuel load, then push on in the final stages.... B-spec points appear to me to be a simple cop-out on PD's behalf to qualify the inclusion of many low-enjoyability races.
Too many manufacturers competitions added simply to expand the game without any thought to the competition, eligability, or prize car. e.g. to enter the Citreon manufacturers race, you need a Citreon 2CV Type A '54. And the grand prize of winning this prestigous race.... ooh, ANOTHER Type A '54. WHY!!!! Admitedlly mine was a shocking Salmon Pink colour which I would not have otherwise bought, but hardly worth the time nor the effort.
NOS
Was this just another late addition without any forthought... it certainly had no programming plan. Consumption of NOS would occur regardless of speed. If the tanks are set to deliver a certain rate of NOS, this would be in volume per second. However, the program has is set to deliver volume per distance travelled. Want to test it... park a car, any car, with the nose perpendicular to a crash barrier. Accellerate fully and NOS-away to your hearts content, safe in the knowledge your tank will be equally full at the end of the test as the start - i gave up after 25 minutes of full NOS delivery in a 2CV!.
NOTE. This has major implications for low BHP cars... you can permanantly provide full NOS to a low BHP car for (say) a 3 lap race round Tsukuba whereas the entire tank would be used by the R92CP in one dash up the Tokyo straight!
AI
I have seen many posts regarding the lack of AI and I will admit it is very poor. One thing I have noticed on numerous occasions is that the AI reacts very well providing you are within a close proximity to the car behind you. However, if you are significntly infront of the trailing car, and you brake early to enable you to exit the corner quickly by flattening the exit angle, you will often get shunted. To my mind the AI is unable to keep track of cars over a set distance ahead.
Addmitedly, none of these 'advancements' were included in GT3 but, in my opinion, all merely illustrate why GT3 was a planned development whilst GT4 was a rushed shipment. Why rushed, you decide.. Sony, accountants, who knows. But sadly, for me, all the major additions in GT4 over GT3 have merely illustrated PD's lack of programming power/foresite or knowledge of requirements.
It appears that GT4 needed to PS3 platform to provide all PD wanted. Given the lack of processing power in the PS2, we had to suffer little more than an expansion to GT3 in a new guise. Has such an anticipated game, with such a fan base and such prior credability been such a let down?
Your opinions/inclusions/views awaited, Weez
