GT4 vs Progect Gotham Racing 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter nickf1gr
  • 150 comments
  • 6,276 views
Originally posted by code_kev
Except your both wrong, bizarre made PGR2. Similar thing that Sega did with the original MSR.

I don't care who made the xbox, makes no diff to me, and why should it? If we are talking market dominating super powers of evil, I'm sure sony could rank pretty high too!
Click to expand...

Let me correct you, sir. Microsoft is evil. Sony is good. Now wash your mouth out with soap and go to bed with no dinner.

(:

I agree that Sony is a conglomo, but they don't seem like arogant market dominators like Microsoft (this goes beyond the console arena). Sony doesn't appear to smite their consumers for doing naughty things with their products. Sony also does not bind user with obsurd licenses.

The producer of the game really makes no difference. Games on the XBox aren't coded to take even remotely full potential of the hardware. I don't know that it's even possible with the XBox code. The PS2 is significantly more open (by not being nearly as supportive which is a downfall) and therefore the producers can use different methods to make the games far more effecient in code and perform better.

Blah blah blah ... PGR is an arcade racer, GT is a 'simulator'. Woo, pick your poison. I'm going home to play GT3.

Additionally: I think in general the XBox makes prettier pictures. There are very few exceptions.
 
Compared

Wanna say, holy crap, GT3 looks sweet on ma new tele!!! :D

Anyway, tbh I'd have to say the PGR2 one does look abit better, but that's my op. The GT3 one does look utterly amazin too, tbh I forgot how good it looked!
 
I still get surprised by how good GT3 looks sometimes. The Tokyo circuit looks awesome! I can't wait to see what PD is cooking up for GT4 (as much as we think we know about it, I'm sure there will still be some great surprises)!
 
The graphics in GT3 are just right and the car models are exquisite, second to none. For me though it's all about how the cars handle. I haven't played PGR2, but until and if I do GT4P is OK for me. :)
 
First of all, I like PGR2. But some of the cars in PGR2 are modeled horribly, the EVO VII being one of them. If you know what a real EVO is supposed to look like you will be very disappointed in the PGR2 version. The vertical sides to the rear wing are at a completely wrong angle, for starters. The EVO looked the same in PGR1, they just put it in PGR2 without correcting it. I'm hoping they have the EVO VIII as downloadable content and do it right!
Some of the other cars look nice but no game is anywhere near the accuracy of GT series. Every car looks spot on like its real life counterpart.

Don't get me started about Sega GT. Ugggh.
 
Kev, you seem to tell everyon here that they are basicly PS2 fan boys. You seem to me that you think nothing looks better then PGR2, saying that the evo in PGR2 looks better than GT's means your looking at the graphics it's self...not the car. Look at what 8400 said, he's correct.
 
Originally posted by code_kev
Compared

Wanna say, holy crap, GT3 looks sweet on ma new tele!!! :D

Anyway, tbh I'd have to say the PGR2 one does look abit better, but that's my op. The GT3 one does look utterly amazin too, tbh I forgot how good it looked!
Click to expand...
On GT3 the way the TVR paint changes colour is totally realistic, just the way it does it on the actual car, PGR2 though is all wrong, it looks like a haze, very poor.
 
Originally posted by code_kev
Nothing like judging 2 games on utter crap screenshots eh racing freak.

Sorry to burst your bubble peeps, but the evo on PGR2 really does look amazing, don't be ignorent and automatically assume it's not as good just because it's on a console u don't own.
Click to expand...

I never said that it didn't look amazing.....I think it's sweet lookin, on the Xbox. But i was just saying, since the xbox is higher power, it's awesome how PD can pull something like that off on the PS2....compared to some games on the ps2 that look like PS1 games at times. I've played the Xbox, and generally the graphics are a little bit crisper than the ps2....but the PS2 can still put out more power than some people think.
 
Stop being so Childish, code-kev (ahem),

Please dont judge me by my post, I was just trying to provide an insight between GT4 and PGR2, no more, no less.

Nothing like judging 2 games on utter crap screenshots eh racing freak.
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble peeps, but the evo on PGR2 really does look amazing, don't be ignorent and automatically assume it's not as good just because it's on a console u don't own.
Click to expand...

Whats that peeps talk all about, are your retarded or something, I actually do own a XBOX and PGR2, I like the game, but the EVO is version 7 and I hate the modelling done by Bizarre Creations.

I am waiting for OUTRUN 2, because thats a better drifter than PGR2. Stop being so social inept in your comprehension of other peoples opinions. :trouble: :mad:

END OF ARGUMENT.
 
Originally posted by RacingFreak2k3
I never said that it didn't look amazing..... I've played the Xbox, and generally the graphics are a little bit crisper than the ps2....but the PS2 can still put out more power than some people think.
Click to expand...

The ps2 is like a Honda engine. Small 1.8 or 2.0 liter engine that puts out more power per liter than most other enigines. The xbox is like an american engine, v8, big engine, wastes lots of gas to be powerfull, but still powerfull non the less.
 
It's simple, PGR2 has better graphics, ie higher polygon count, higher res textures ext, but GT3, GTC and GT4's modelling is more accurate. I think people here can get the two things confused when a debate starts, one person says the graphics arn't as good in PGR2, meaning the models, then he gets a reply saying are you stupid, look at it, but he's on about the better textures and higher polygon count ect. Just accept both games for what they are, both have pro's and con's on the visual side of things.
 
I'd like to add that the modelling of the Force Feedback in the GT series is nothing short of incredible. Compare that to PGR2, which doesn't even have Force Feedback support ...

Two great games, just make sure you know which one is for you. ;)
 
I'm going to sum up the first few pages of this thread so any of you just joining dont have to bear with it (I just read through them and got so pissed off): A bunch of assholes (the ones who ragged on either pgr2 or gt3 or halo or any game they havent played in depth) ruined yet another thread by posting ignorant ****. Lets try to keep this one rational from this point forth. These last two pages have level-headed posts, lets keep it up.
 
I haven't read this whole thread. I don't really care to. GT4 isn't out yet. The Demo of GT4 is and while it isn't exactly up to the appearence of PGR2, YET!!!

It still technically beats it. And even if it didn't or if in fact it doesn't beat it technically. You will never, and I mean "never" experience a simulator like GT4 on the Xbox or Gamecube. And I'm not just talking about the graphics but the game as whole. There is way too much custom written, PS2 specific, code being put into GT4. PS2 is the only system that can do 128bits worth of quadwords every clock tick, and I'm sure that will be exploited in GT4.

GT4 will be around 60fps at 640x480 and will be pushing 6-8 million polygons (Over 2xGT3) with a highly realistic physics engine. This means the PS2 needs to crunch fairly precise floating point numbers very quickly. It will also, utilize it's own 3D sound engine which will take even more raw processing muscle. Then we have the particle effects that use realistic physics. Remember how they acted realistically in GT3? It wasn't magic, and there is no built in hardware to do that with. The lighting in GT4, as in GT3, is custom. It isn't using built in hardware to do the work. Like most stuff in GT4, it's all custom programmed stuff. Even the Anti Alaizing is custom to the PS2. Most developers use Vector AA now. Well, the good ones do anyway.

To pull off a simulator of GT4's magnitude also requires very "spot on" engines. Such as collision detection, lighting, and what not.

Then we have to consider the textures. Sure, PGR2 has better quality textures than GT4 prologue but how many of those textures are re-used? Do you see 50 different stickers on each car in PGR2? Do you see any backgrounds in PGR2 that can compete with Times Square?
No and No...


PGR2 is at 30fps and isn't using realistic physics. It uses arcadey physics which are not as presice with floating point calculations among other things. The developers "claim" they made up for the lack of fps by giving you FSAA. But, I doubt very seriously they are using true per pixel FSAA.

PGR2 has better realtime reflective work, textures, etc, than GT4p...

But the bottom line is that GT4 is GT4 and just like GT3 it will have subtle differences that you can't really explain but you know they are there. That's the kind of stuff that always gives GT the edge over any racer.

To be honest both of them have thier differences graphically. So, in the end, you can't really say which one looks better than the other. That would all come down to opinion.

In conclusion GT4 = GT4 and PGR2 = PGR2

Flame Retardant Suit is ON!!!
 
You felt the need to bring this old thread up even though its been argued hundreds of times :rolleyes:

Yet again another individual that seems to believe doing effects in software is better than in hardware :lol:

Oh and btw there isn't 50 different stickers on a car in GT games, its just one texture for the main body, just like a red car is generally one texture for the body. Also PGR2 is reknown to have superior city enviroments, NY track has very nice scenery I agree but far more pop-up than PGR2's.

The Xbox could easily handle it, if there was a good enough developer to take advantage of its extra power. Until then roll on GT on PS2 ;)
 
Originally posted by T5-R
You felt the need to bring this old thread up even though its been argued hundreds of times :rolleyes:

Yet again another individual that seems to believe doing effects in software is better than in hardware :lol:

Oh and btw there isn't 50 different stickers on a car in GT games, its just one texture for the main body, just like a red car is generally one texture for the body. Also PGR2 is reknown to have superior city enviroments, NY track has very nice scenery I agree but far more pop-up than PGR2's.

The Xbox could easily handle it, if there was a good enough developer to take advantage of its extra power. Until then roll on GT on PS2 ;)
Click to expand...

Doing effects in software can be better than doing them in hardware. Usually, this is not the case. But with a game like GT4 it is the case. The light source used in GT4 is done with software and looks more realistic than any lightsource the Xbox could ever do in hardware. This doens't mean that the PS2 is using more power to do the lighting than the Xbox would use. It does mean that software will "always" be more flexible than hardware. Even if software requires more time, money, and effort to implement.

Look at the car models in PGR2 and look at the car models in GT4. The ones in PGR2 have higher polygon counts and technically, better textures and effects work. But, they all still look like plastic snap-tite models. The ones in GT4 look much more realistic and you can thank software rendering for that.

Next, look at Champions of Norath for PS2. It has been reviewed as having the best graphics for a dungeon crawler on any system. And all those effects in the game, the water, the pools of lava, the lighting, the reflective work, the particle effects, even the excellent realtime bump mapping were all done in software. Does this mean software is more efficeint than hardware? NO.

Does it mean software can be more flexible than hardware? YES...

And I don't care how many times 16 year old kids argue the topic. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

This also proves there are things the Xbox simply can't do that the PS2 can.

Metal Gear Solid 2 Substance doesn't slow down on the PS2 version when it rains.

I won't get into an Xbox vs PS2 debate but if anyone wants to. I"ll be more than happy to point out some facts about each system 99% of the public is unaware of.
 
I have seen this on many different websites and I always say GT4 has not come out yet, so my opinion states as undecided. (Although, I have PGR2 and it is pretty good.)
 
Originally posted by 11646
I have seen this on many different websites and I always say GT4 has not come out yet, so my opinion states as undecided. (Although, I have PGR2 and it is pretty good.)
Click to expand...

That's all that can really be said, for now.
 
No it's not because we already have GT4 Prologue, and so we know the standard of graphics for this game.

The X-Box is the more powerful machine obviously, the extra memory alone makes up for a big part of that, as well as the superior sound sub-system which can think for itself (and do 5.1) much better than the PS2 one can.

However, the X-Box is also based on the GeForce3 hardware, which has pixel aliasing that cannot be turned off. This pixel aliasing causes the 'plastic' effect that is talked about above. The PS2 doesn't have hardware pixel aliasing, and in the end PD has developed its own aliasing technique which allows it to apply blend and smooth effects to different areas, apparently by a combination of alpha blending and pixel smoothing for vectored or vector like areas.

The problem that the X-Box suffers from in this case, is that the pixel AA/shading cannot be turned off. No amount of coding is going to fix that, which leads to colours usually being more flat on the X-Box, and allows GameCube graphics to often outshine X-Box graphics. In the next GeForce generation (4) this was, of course, fixed.

While hardware optimisation can be significantly faster, sometimes a routine is designed so cleverly that it is still faster in software. However, if this routine is then optimised again in hardware, that could speed up things again significantly.

The future (for consoles) is no doubt a combination of software and hardware, as can already be seen in the current generation of videocards, where hardware is optimised to run graphical routines; but the exact coding of the algorithms is left to the programmer. Best of both worlds, in other words.
 
The light source used in GT4 is done with software and looks more realistic than any lightsource the Xbox could ever do in hardware
Click to expand...

Did you just make that crap up? Thats called PROGRAMMING. It's like people saying the PS2 can do more advanced AI then anything else because the CPU is called the "emotion engine", a concept that would be allmost comical if people didn't actually believe it to be true.


MGS2 for the xbox was just a sloppy conversion anyway, if you look at most multiformat games, say for example prince of persia, the xbox version is usually the best looker (and sounder), with the PS2 version allways looking the worst, because it's a SLOWER machine.

Next, look at Champions of Norath for PS2. It has been reviewed as having the best graphics for a dungeon crawler on any system. And all those effects in the game, the water, the pools of lava, the lighting, the reflective work, the particle effects, even the excellent realtime bump mapping were all done in software
Click to expand...

All effects done before in countless games, in hardware, and better :P. Run Unreal Tournie in software, then hardware. Now you get it right?

I just don't understand why people have to talk crap about machines , I own both a PS2 and an XBOX, and the PS2 games while great and stuff, simply do not look a patch on the xbox games.

About the gamecube, imo the xbox and GC are about equal. Some lookers on the GC, some lookers on the xbox.

I expect people are gonna moan now, accuse me of being a fanboy, what ever, but software rending is crap. fact.
 
Originally posted by PS2techidiot
Doing effects in software can be better than doing them in hardware. Usually, this is not the case. But with a game like GT4 it is the case. The light source used in GT4 is done with software and looks more realistic than any lightsource the Xbox could ever do in hardware. This doens't mean that the PS2 is using more power to do the lighting than the Xbox would use. It does mean that software will "always" be more flexible than hardware. Even if software requires more time, money, and effort to implement.

Look at the car models in PGR2 and look at the car models in GT4. The ones in PGR2 have higher polygon counts and technically, better textures and effects work. But, they all still look like plastic snap-tite models. The ones in GT4 look much more realistic and you can thank software rendering for that.

Next, look at Champions of Norath for PS2. It has been reviewed as having the best graphics for a dungeon crawler on any system. And all those effects in the game, the water, the pools of lava, the lighting, the reflective work, the particle effects, even the excellent realtime bump mapping were all done in software. Does this mean software is more efficeint than hardware? NO.

Does it mean software can be more flexible than hardware? YES...

And I don't care how many times 16 year old kids argue the topic. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

This also proves there are things the Xbox simply can't do that the PS2 can.

Metal Gear Solid 2 Substance doesn't slow down on the PS2 version when it rains.

I won't get into an Xbox vs PS2 debate but if anyone wants to. I"ll be more than happy to point out some facts about each system 99% of the public is unaware of.
Click to expand...

Your not related to cobragt by any chance are you? :rolleyes: :lol:

I would bother to write a proper reply, but frankly I would be repeating myself. I mean just look at your member name... ;)

Oh & btw, driving real cars @ 16 isn't legal in the UK.
 
Originally posted by code_kev
Did you just make that crap up? Thats called PROGRAMMING. It's like people saying the PS2 can do more advanced AI then anything else because the CPU is called the "emotion engine", a concept that would be allmost comical if people didn't actually believe it to be true.


MGS2 for the xbox was just a sloppy conversion anyway, if you look at most multiformat games, say for example prince of persia, the xbox version is usually the best looker (and sounder), with the PS2 version allways looking the worst, because it's a SLOWER machine.



All effects done before in countless games, in hardware, and better :P. Run Unreal Tournie in software, then hardware. Now you get it right?

I just don't understand why people have to talk crap about machines , I own both a PS2 and an XBOX, and the PS2 games while great and stuff, simply do not look a patch on the xbox games.

About the gamecube, imo the xbox and GC are about equal. Some lookers on the GC, some lookers on the xbox.

I expect people are gonna moan now, accuse me of being a fanboy, what ever, but software rending is crap. fact.
Click to expand...

according to most reviews the prince of persia looks the same on all systems.

they even said that on tech tv. also need for speed hot pursuit 2 looks better on the ps2. look into EGM database to check that out. it depends on whos programming it.

to see which game is better lets see what sells more, them we will know.
 
HUH?? Sells more? You actually think that makes a difference? :odd: How does selling more tell you which is better?

And pop does NOT look the same on all systems. Allmost the same, but not quite.

Taken from ign.com

"The GameCube version of Prince looks slightly better than the PlayStation 2 one, and the Xbox better still. GCN and Xbox sport marginally crisper textures and more stable framerates. The Xbox incarnation features higher polygon counts, too. In the PS2 and GameCube builds, Prince's fingers are little more than a texture, but in the Xbox one the fingers are individually modeled and animated. On top of this, Ubisoft has implemented advanced lighting effects in the Microsoft version and as a result the world that Prince inhabitants looks slightly richer and more atmospheric, if that's possible. All of this noted, all three versions are beautiful and look very similar.
"
I've also played the ps2 and xbox versions, and the pc (demo). The PC version is by far the best naturally.

My point is that if a game looks better on the ps2, then say the xbox or gamecube version, then it's because they are sloppy ports. NFS HP2 is a crappy EA game anyway. EA are generally crap these days.
 
Originally posted by code_kev
HUH?? Sells more? You actually think that makes a difference? :odd: How does selling more tell you which is better?

And pop does NOT look the same on all systems. Allmost the same, but not quite.

Taken from ign.com

"The GameCube version of Prince looks slightly better than the PlayStation 2 one, and the Xbox better still. GCN and Xbox sport marginally crisper textures and more stable framerates. The Xbox incarnation features higher polygon counts, too. In the PS2 and GameCube builds, Prince's fingers are little more than a texture, but in the Xbox one the fingers are individually modeled and animated. On top of this, Ubisoft has implemented advanced lighting effects in the Microsoft version and as a result the world that Prince inhabitants looks slightly richer and more atmospheric, if that's possible. All of this noted, all three versions are beautiful and look very similar.
"
I've also played the ps2 and xbox versions, and the pc (demo). The PC version is by far the best naturally.

My point is that if a game looks better on the ps2, then say the xbox or gamecube version, then it's because they are sloppy ports. NFS HP2 is a crappy EA game anyway. EA are generally crap these days.
Click to expand...

no its not, thats just your opinion. on x-play they said that pop looks identical.........dont believe me?

sales of a game could tell which is better.

pgr2 just looks better....what else is better about it besides graphics
 
Sales mean nothing. There are MANY games have deserved to sell well, but have not. LOADS. Plus the ps2 has a slight user base advantage over the Xbox and GC, so obviously it well sell more. DUH!

Well having not played GT4 (just gtp), i can compare GT3 to PRG2, and I'd say pgr2 was better in the following ways.

1.Better graphics.
2.More fun (gt3 is a snore-athon)
3.Better Sound effects(cars dont sound like hairdriers, and its 5.1)
4.Damage
5.More tracks
6.4 player mode
7.Live play
8.Ferraris
9.Better sensation of speed
10.Garage and show room
11.The Nurb
12.Your own juke box (and more songs anyway)


How can the fact that one version looks better then the other be an opinion?!?!?! If the ps2 version DOESNT have seperate fingers, and the xbox version does, how is THAT an opinion? ITS A FACT. An opinion is me saying "I think this is better then that". Note the word think in it, a fact is "the xbox version of pop has higher detail characters". It is a fact, it has happened, it has been proven, it is there. Just because you don't like the idea of the version on your console not being the best means nothing, deal with it. You don't see me going "ugh mgs2 is better on the xbox" because i know as a fact it isnt, it's a sloppy conversion.

tbh all the console versions look pretty crap compared to the pc one if you ask me.
 

Latest Posts

Back