Would you want to see GT5 ported to the PC?

[Woolie Wool]

DISCLAIMER: This thread does not suggest that GT5 will actually have a PC port. In actuality, it almost certainly will not.

Anyway, would you like to see GT5 on the PC?

Advantages:
-Mods (Drive a Ferrari!)
-Better graphics
-Faster framerates
-Mods
-Virtually unlimited savegame storage
-A mouse-centric GUI could be far better than one designed around the DS2
-Mods
-PD/the PC porting company could release patches for bugs instead of whole new game versions
-GT will have virtually no competition as most PC racers are arcadey games like NFS
-Did I mention mods?

Disadvantages:
-PC games are less stable than PS2 games (blame Windows!)
-Incompetent programmers could nullify the advantage of a mouse by screwing up the GUI, or the whole game for that matter (this could happen if PD outsources the job of porting the game to the wrong people)
-Many people will have to buy a gamepad or wheel along with GT5 because keyboards ain't gonna cut it.

What do you think? Yea or nay?

 

[Jedi2016]

Mods: Yes, that would be very cool.

Better graphics: Only with an incredibly powerful, incredibly expensive computer.

Better framerates: Yes.. even HDTVs are limited to 60fps. But, like with the graphics, it would require more power to get it into the 100+fps range.

Controls via mouse: Screw that, my DFP works just fine on the computer, thanks.

 

[Woolie Wool]

Better graphics: Only with an incredibly powerful, incredibly expensive computer.

A 2-gigahertz PC with a GeForce 3 will spank a PS2.

Better framerates: Yes.. even HDTVs are limited to 60fps. But, like with the graphics, it would require more power to get it into the 100+fps range.

Even a budget PC today will eat a PS2 for breakfast and still have room for a side order of XBox. (compare the PC version of Doom 3 with the XBox version: the PC version blows away the XBox version).

XBox:

Controls via mouse: Screw that, my DFP works just fine on the computer, thanks.

But it won't navigate a menu very well. Mice were made to navigate GUIs.

 

[Seanman]

However, we know for sure that the PS3 has the graphic and processing power of a top-of-the-line computer, maybe even more.

 

[Jedi2016]

A 2-gigahertz PC with a GeForce 3 will spank a PS2.


Even a budget PC today will eat a PS2 for breakfast and still have room for a side order of XBox. (compare the PC version of Doom 3 with the XBox version: the PC version blows away the XBox version).

That's true, but you said GT5... that means we're talking about PS3, not PS2. And I have an inkling of what GT5 is going to look like, and believe me... nothing less than $1500 worth of PC could even come close.

And no, a "budget" PC will not spank a PS2. Yes, the PC version of Doom 3 is superior to the Xbox version, but what are the system requirements for that game? My computer here is ten times as powerful as a PS2, and it can't even touch Doom 3. Or GT4, for that matter. Or God of War, or MGS3, or any of 'em. And that's six year old technology.

As for navigating the menus... well, you wouldn't use the wheel for that, would you? You'd use the mouse, that's what it's there for. Just because you have a wheel connected doesn't mean the mouse no longer works, you know. I'm assuming you've played at least some PC games with a wheel..

 

[madmax 2006]

Not only no, hell no.

 

[iceburns288]

This would be absolutely fantastic as it would also allow me to finally play GT with a wheel, ever since Sony thought it would be funny to code out support for the MOMO Force to try and sell more DFPs! I'm still angry about that, BTW. And yes I want GT on PC as it will also have antialiasing, GT4's biggest problem.

 

[crazedmodder]

Isn't this game published by SCEA/SCEE? They'd have to go elsewhere for publishing and it'd probably turn out like crap, just like Halo for the PC did.

-Mods would be oh so cool.
-I doubt it would have better graphics since we're talking about PS3 not PS2
-More frames per second doesn't really matter, since we can't really notice any difference over about 45FPS and our monitors can't go over about 70Hz at their maximum resolution we won't see more than 70FPS anyways.
-We could get the hard drive for the PS3 and the memory sticks are relatively large anyways. I mean, GT4 doesn't even take up that much space, PD knows their stuff and optimizes their code well ( I believe the saves of replays are probably files with instructions in them and game saves are text files with a certain syntax telling the game what mods you have and how old the car is).
-A mouse GUI would be cool.
-I hate patches with a passion. Due to patches many companies half ass games to release early thinking they can just release patches later on. I paid 70$ for this game, I want it the way it's supposed to be out of the box, I don't want to have to download patches on top of it all. (I find HL2 is a prime example of this, since it was very buggy from release. They haven't even released the patches they've been promising us for years!). That's why I'm happy the PS3 won't ship with an HDD, at least game developers won't be able to depend on everyone having a hard drive for patches.
-Yeah, GT would kill everything else on the PC


Disadvantages:
-Stupid windows/Direct X always makes my games studder. ALWAYS! I mean, UT2k4 and Doom3 worked fine in Linux.
-Keyboard would suck total balls wouldn't it

Now just another addition to the whole graphics thing, I explained it already in another forum. PS2 does have better visuals than an equivalent priced PC (about 300$ here in Canada will buy you a computer that runs office, that's about it if you use windows since it's such a resource hog). The reason for this, even due to the PS2's weak graphics system and processor is because of optimization. When people make a game for a console, they know what will ALWAYS be in that console, so they can optimize for that cpu, mainboard and graphics processor alone with no compromises. Now with PCs, they have to make sure that they're games work on nVidia chipsets, ATi chipsets, intel chipsets, sis chipsets, amd chipsets, amd processors, intel processors, intel graphics cards, nVidia graphics cards and ATi graphics cards. Not to mention there are hundreds of different types of chips and hundreds of different speeds of each. This is the reason that they can optimize so aggresively for the PS2 on not the computer. And is also why in many games on ps2 (mg3 and gt4 come to mind) look better than my 1500$ computer (2.4GHZ A64, 1GB RAM, nVidia 6800 vanilla). I think the only computer game that was really well optimized was Call Of Duty (which ran at like, 240FPS on my old computer with medium settings ).

 

[Jay]

I personally dont want to see GT5 on PC, Ive had nothing but bad experience with ports.

 

[niky]

Although I am constantly amazed by how fast my PC is... erh... was (damn fire), good graphics don't always make up for ch-ch-choppy gameplay. I'll admit, DOOM3 and Half-Life 2 are BEAUTIFUL to watch and play, but if you want console speeds, framerates and such, you've got to tune the graphics down... quite a bit... unless you've spent $5000 on your system, no way can you play modern PC games at full framerate and detail.

I was amazed by NFSU2 on the PC, spent hours on it. Then I got to play the PS2 version... reaction? Same graphics as on the PC set at full blast, and same framerate as the PC set on medium. I wasn't so happy with the PC version after that. Oh, and the controls? A lot better. Until they make a dual shock for the PC, it won't be a good console-gamer. Stutter may be slightly liveable in CS:Source, where the action is sporadic, or in MMORPGs, but not in a racer, where you need total control over a long period of time.

 

[63AvantiR3]

I'm not here to get too indepth into the money spent on a PC versus the capabilities of the Playstations (PSX, PS One, PS2, PS3, etc.) discussion. I will add though that generally speaking, a personal computer has better |everything| (that's everything in "absolute" brackets) but it carries an operating system as overhead. It's because of this overhead that a personal console can do more with less. As mentioned above, televisions are the limiting factor with personal consoles.

My 1.7Ghz, 1GB RAM, 3DfX Voodoo3 equipped PC can play a good number of games very well. All I'd have to do to update my computer from 1999 standards is add in a $250 video card and it could play many new games at their best resolution.

Give me a game that runs on a computer which doesn't have any overhead and plumb the picture signal to a computer monitor. That would be cool.

Now on to the main issue. I would love to see a version of Gran Turismo come out on the PC. I have been wishing this since GT2. Sony & Polyphony Digital could only earn money by doing so, I don't forsee them losing money in selling Gran Turismo on the computer. It couldn't be so expensive to write an additional code that selling the game for $50 on the PC wouldn't net a profit. If the game comes out and you don't want it, that's easy, don't buy it. If the game doesn't come out and you do want it ... that's a conundrum.

 

[niky]

One big problem. Easier pirating. Pirated PS2 CDs are easy to catch, and remain limited to far eastern markets (like in my country... but my GT4 is legit!). But pirated PC games are just too easy. You can transfer them over the internet, via e-mail, or fileshare... and all a hacker need do is CRACK the CD security code (which is ridiculously easy). One way to fix this would be to do what Valve did, and put an online verification requirement for Half-Life 2, but this didn't stop piracy. It just meant that pirated Half-Life 2 copies couldn't be played online (fixable by hacking accounts)... and that us DAMN LEGITIMATE OWNERS of HL2 couldn't play whenever our internet connection was down. Forget even trying to use it on your laptop... IT'S A PAIN IN THE ASS!

 

[VIPFREAK]

As much as I wanted GT to be... I have to say no... It would be selling out and that's not what GT has been about.

 

[63AvantiR3]

A 2-gigahertz PC with a GeForce 3 will spank a PS2.
Even a budget PC today will eat a PS2 for breakfast and still have room for a side order of XBox. (compare the PC version of Doom 3 with the XBox version: the PC version blows away the XBox version).
... Mice were made to navigate GUIs.

I'd be tempted to agree with Woolie Wool here. Imagine using a mouse to click the arrows in the settings screen and selecting the component that you want filling that spot.

... unless you've spent $5000 on your system, no way can you play modern PC games at full framerate and detail.

I think $5000 is an awful high estimate. I have had the same computer case & power supply since the mid 1990s. I don't buy premade computers; I build my own so I could be an exception to the rule and why I think $5000 is high. I buy my own motherboards, disk drives, CPU chips, RAM, video cards, and CD-ROM drives and slap everything together.

Right now I could buy a motherboard for $160 and either a 2.8GHz chip for $175 or I could splurge and get a 3.4GHz chip for $290. I see memory available for right around $50 per half gig or $100 for a full gig. Supposing I went with the 3.4GHz CPU option and 2 gigabytes of RAM, I am now at $650. I already own a monitor, keyboard and mouse. I need a video card, so tap in another $300 for a card with 256MB of V-RAM because I am also getting into Photoshop and digital photography; now we're at $950.

Is there anything more left to buy? I may be legitimately forgetting something so chime in if I am. I could tack on a steering wheel, but those are pretty much the same cost Playstation to PC. Heck, doesn't the new Logitech one work on PC as well? It's USB so I would think that it should ...?

I've just fictionally spent about $1000 on new components and I'm still running the same operating system that takes up the same amount of overhead space whether I have this old 1.7GHz/1GB RAM/64MB V-RAM system, or my "new" 3.4GHz/2GB RAM/256MB V-RAM system. I've only given my computer more volume to work with. I would think that the "new" system would perform at the level you speak of: New games, highest resolution, no hiccups.

 

[JohnBM01]

Even if it was ported to the PC, my computer wouldn't handle it for DAMN sure. The PC would offer all sorts of possibilities to the programmer, hacker, and such. So to make a usually long story short, no. Not really much to explain to my post, so I'll leave it as that.

 

[niky]

I've just fictionally spent about $1000 on new components and I'm still running the same operating system that takes up the same amount of overhead space whether I have this old 1.7GHz/1GB RAM/64MB V-RAM system, or my "new" 3.4GHz/2GB RAM/256MB V-RAM system. I've only given my computer more volume to work with. I would think that the "new" system would perform at the level you speak of: New games, highest resolution, no hiccups.

But for a first time gamer, that's still over $1500 worth of equipment. While you could buy a PS2 and a basic computer (for internet only) for less than that. And most gamers have to upgrade their PCs regularly to keep up with the state of the art. And upgrade, and upgrade... the beauty of consoles is you buy it, once. Period.

But that's also the beauty of PCs. When the X-Box came out, Microsoft fan-boys were crowing (VERY LOUDLY) about how it was so much better than anything else. Six months later, my (ex)gaming PC was upgraded to something twice as good as an X-Box. You're right... PC's rule the tech bandwagon. But upgrading and getting all those pieces installed and working together PROPERLY (and on Windows... ) is pretty frustrating at times. Which is another reason why gaming on consoles is still popular, because anyone can afford one, put a disc in and start it up... PC Gaming is mostly for us geeks.

 

[63AvantiR3]

Yep. I can agree with what you said Niky; points taken.

 

[Cobra_UK]

Good thread, albeit fictional.

I own a very powerful £1500+ PC. I will also upgrade shortly with a £150 video card which should enable me to play all the current games plus future ones for another 3 years at their best quality settings. After this upgrade, there will come a time to upgrade again. But I'm not upgrading in the hope that any PS2/3 games will ever be ported to PC. Why? Because it's sheer stupidity to build a £1500 PC to play a console game. Consoles are cheaper and much better suited for gaming than a PC will ever be. I only play large scale FPS and RTS online games on my PC since a keyboard and mouse are better suited and I don't have to pay anything extra to play (like XBOX Live for example). More to the point, when my PC will no be able to handle more upgrades I will not buy a new one. I'll simply use my current PC for what it was meant for: work, internet and multimedia.

One last thing I'd like to say. The cell processor is about to push PC's out of the games market forever, mark my words. The PS3 processing power is twice that of an XBOX360 and more that 10 times of the most powerful PC on the market at the moment. Also the consoles which use to advance in power quite slowly compared to PC are now making much bigger leaps. The PS3 is more than 30 times more powerful than the PS2. PC technology simply can't keep up and even if they could the cost of such a PC would be unaffordable and would not sell.

 

[Dave A]

The PS3 isn't twice as powerful as the XB360, thats a load of marketing slur. The cell processor is still too new to know how it will fare in the long run, sure things are looking like they should be good, but we don't know yet. A console is better at games for one reaon only, their processors, gpu's and architechure as a whole are built primarily to cope with games, PC's are far more multi-puropse. As for the cell pushing PC's out the market, what makes you think that if the cell turns out to be as revolutionary in practice as it sounds in theory, that we won't see PC's with cell architecture.

 

[Cobra_UK]

You may choose to believe it's all marketing slur, as you put it. But my statements are based on information released at E3. I choose to believe it, of course you don't have to.

The cell processor rights are owned by Sony, IBM and another company which escapes my memory at the moment. As such when Microsoft wanted to use the cell processor in their XBOX360 they couldn't and opted for the, now old, Power PC core technology, RISC. Companies like SONY and IBM have now a revolutionary new processor which will increase their share in the massive IT market. I can't see them being silly enough to allow PC's, using Microsoft's OS to incorporate such technology. Sony has proven once already that it can take on the mighty of Microsoft and beat it. It is estimated that in order for the XBOX360 to even compete with the monster power of the PS3 (and even then fall miserably short), Microsoft are facing an astronomical loss of capital. Still if the XBOX360 is released before the PS3 and they play their cards right, I'm not writing off Microsoft’s effort just yet. My money's on the PS3 though.

 

[crazedmodder]

The PS3 isn't twice as powerful as the XB360, thats a load of marketing slur. The cell processor is still too new to know how it will fare in the long run, sure things are looking like they should be good, but we don't know yet. A console is better at games for one reaon only, their processors, gpu's and architechure as a whole are built primarily to cope with games, PC's are far more multi-puropse. As for the cell pushing PC's out the market, what makes you think that if the cell turns out to be as revolutionary in practice as it sounds in theory, that we won't see PC's with cell architecture.

Once developers have their hands on it for awhile they'll be able to squeeze a lot more power out of the PS3. I'm not going to say twice as much because there will probably be cases where we get more than that out of the PS3 and cases where we get much less. The thing is, with 7 SPEs it's very hard to program for, but once you learn how to use all the cores it'll be great. A massive amount of physics threads can be handled at the same time with ease. The biggest thing with cell is that the SPEs were made with gaming in mind, if they want one for desktop use they'll have to put more PPEs (or PPCs, same crap) to get desktop performance up to par, at the loss of gaming performance of course. Besides that dual core processors are becoming extremely cheap and I think Cell, cell motherboards and XDR ram will be extremely expensive. AMD and Intel are working on virtualization and they are out of order architectures, much better for our every day computing. Oh, and AMD and Intel are probably already working on quad-cores.

 

[Cobra_UK]

I'm sure AMD and Intel are hard at work on multiple core processors they have been for a while. Something like a multi core processing 64bit PC, with a 256bit 1Gb video card, 4Gb of RAM and a 64bit operating system might just be similar in gaming power to a PS3. Still a dual core CPU and a top end PC is hideously expensive at the moment and the quad core will be even worse. Compare that with a £300 PS3, which will no doubt cost £150 after a couple of years and the PC won't stand a chance as a gaming machine.

 

[Dave A]

It's fact that the PS3 can only do certain things twice as much as the XB360, the PS3 IS the superior console technically but overall theres not a huge gulf between the two. Theres area the XB360 is better than the PS3, and areas where the PS3's better. As for MS wanting to use the cell in the XB360, point me to some facts that say so and I'll believe it, but there hasn't been anything coming from MS to suggest it. I think it was Tha_con who made a really good thread about the PS3 and XB360 and the diffences between the two, the PS3 does come out on top but it's not vastly superior, or close to twice as good overall.

And ofcourse the PS3 will outsell the XB360 when it finally arrives, the XB360 will have a nice lead but I think the PS3 could overtake within 3 years. Sony has a very good fan base for the PS that so far is sill much stronger than the XB fan base.

 

[Woolie Wool]

-More frames per second doesn't really matter, since we can't really notice any difference over about 45FPS and our monitors can't go over about 70Hz at their maximum resolution we won't see more than 70FPS anyways.

Refresh rates are apparent on your screen, even well above 70Hz. If you can't get more than 70Hz at 1024x768, get a new monitor. If you're a serious gamer, you should get a monitor that can do 120Hz. (those old-fashioned tube monitors really do outperform newfangled LCD screens)

[qupte]-We could get the hard drive for the PS3 and the memory sticks are relatively large anyways. I mean, GT4 doesn't even take up that much space, PD knows their stuff and optimizes their code well ( I believe the saves of replays are probably files with instructions in them and game saves are text files with a certain syntax telling the game what mods you have and how old the car is).[/quote]
Point conceded.

-A mouse GUI would be cool.

Yes it would. Imagine in GT4, buying a car with three or four clicks instead of scrolling through several big menus in the dealership, manufacturer, lineup, etc..

-I hate patches with a passion. Due to patches many companies half ass games to release early thinking they can just release patches later on. I paid 70$ for this game, I want it the way it's supposed to be out of the box, I don't want to have to download patches on top of it all. (I find HL2 is a prime example of this, since it was very buggy from release. They haven't even released the patches they've been promising us for years!). That's why I'm happy the PS3 won't ship with an HDD, at least game developers won't be able to depend on everyone having a hard drive for patches.

Bugs occur in every game (*cough* BMWs in Schwarzwald Liga A and M coupes in Hot Hatch League). Patches fix them. And PD seems competent enough to get every bug fixed in no more than a couple of patches.

-Yeah, GT would kill everything else on the PC

GT has no equivalent on the PC. How could Sony not make money?

Disadvantages:
-Stupid windows/Direct X always makes my games studder. ALWAYS! I mean, UT2k4 and Doom3 worked fine in Linux.

Your OS might have "rotted" over time. A reformat would probably work wonders. UT2004 runs like silk on maximum detail on my Athlon 2700+ with a Radeon 9200 and 512 MB of RAM.

-Keyboard would suck total balls wouldn't it

I've seen Dual-Shock clone gamepads for the PC. Not sure how well they work though.

Now just another addition to the whole graphics thing, I explained it already in another forum. PS2 does have better visuals than an equivalent priced PC (about 300$ here in Canada will buy you a computer that runs office, that's about it if you use windows since it's such a resource hog).

You really shouldn't buy a $300 computer for anything.

The reason for this, even due to the PS2's weak graphics system and processor is because of optimization. When people make a game for a console, they know what will ALWAYS be in that console, so they can optimize for that cpu, mainboard and graphics processor alone with no compromises. Now with PCs, they have to make sure that they're games work on nVidia chipsets, ATi chipsets, intel chipsets, sis chipsets, amd chipsets, amd processors, intel processors, intel graphics cards, nVidia graphics cards and ATi graphics cards. Not to mention there are hundreds of different types of chips and hundreds of different speeds of each. This is the reason that they can optimize so aggresively for the PS2 on not the computer. And is also why in many games on ps2 (mg3 and gt4 come to mind) look better than my 1500$ computer (2.4GHZ A64, 1GB RAM, nVidia 6800 vanilla). I think the only computer game that was really well optimized was Call Of Duty (which ran at like, 240FPS on my old computer with medium settings ).

Good point, but you ain't gonna run a modern game with an SIS graphics card.

Addendum: With the advent of HDDs, could console games stop being 100% closed? I know that people have ported Doom (the ORIGINAL 1993 Doom and 1994 Doom II) to the XBox and even added mod support.

 

[crazedmodder]

Removed some stuff to make post smaller:

Bugs occur in every game (*cough* BMWs in Schwarzwald Liga A and M coupes in Hot Hatch League). Patches fix them. And PD seems competent enough to get every bug fixed in no more than a couple of patches.

Your OS might have "rotted" over time. A reformat would probably work wonders. UT2004 runs like silk on maximum detail on my Athlon 2700+ with a Radeon 9200 and 512 MB of RAM.

I've seen Dual-Shock clone gamepads for the PC. Not sure how well they work though.

Addendum: With the advent of HDDs, could console games stop being 100% closed? I know that people have ported Doom (the ORIGINAL 1993 Doom and 1994 Doom II) to the XBox and even added mod support.[/QUOTE]

For my monitor, well I play my games 1280x960 (too many jaggies at 1024x768 even with AA) and I can get 72Hz. But honestly, over 40ish FPS I don't think your eyes would notice a 12FPS increase (since we're comparing to 60Hz HDTVs). Yeah maybe 30FPS you'd notice but even at 100FPS my monitor only refreshes 72 times a second, so I would only be able to see 72 out of those 100 frames. HDTVs support a hell of a lot higher resolutions than my monitor too.

Yeah you're right, PD has been pretty persistent in fixing their bugs. I'm just pissed so many other companies resort to patches 👎

My copy of Windows XP is a fresh install (I reinstalled because I was having stutters before, and I thought this would fix it). Weird that a fresh install didn't do anything New drivers make it worse too.

Yeah I've seen dual-shock clones as well. I believe Logitech has a lot of them (wired and wireless). You can even get a PS --> USB adapter for 15$ from Radioshack (the source, same thing).

Yeah I would like to see mods for console games now tha twe have hdds, but I have a gut feeling that they'll only be used for multimedia. Actually, I remember reading that the PS3's hard drive won't be allowed to be used by games, which if true, sucks .

 

[niky]

Windows XP is the absolute nadir of PC-Gaming. So many damn drivers and add-ons and such that are extremely hard to manually configure or temporarily remove (some have to be permanently removed to be disabled) and the "main" Windows Program getting more and more cumbersome with patches here and there... it's like a leaky boat, patch all the holes to keep it afloat, but the weight of those patches will just SINK the damn thing in the end.

I think the big question at this point is: Instead of GT on the PC... should we be asking for PC features on our next PS to enrich our GT5 experience? Giving us the advantages of a simpe console with the upgradeability of a gaming PC (without the hassles of drivers for printers, phones, bluetooth devices, wireless access, word processors, data managers, etc, etc, ad nauseum.)...

 

[crazedmodder]

Windows XP is the absolute nadir of PC-Gaming. So many damn drivers and add-ons and such that are extremely hard to manually configure or temporarily remove (some have to be permanently removed to be disabled) and the "main" Windows Program getting more and more cumbersome with patches here and there... it's like a leaky boat, patch all the holes to keep it afloat, but the weight of those patches will just SINK the damn thing in the end.

I think the big question at this point is: Instead of GT on the PC... should we be asking for PC features on our next PS to enrich our GT5 experience? Giving us the advantages of a simpe console with the upgradeability of a gaming PC (without the hassles of drivers for printers, phones, bluetooth devices, wireless access, word processors, data managers, etc, etc, ad nauseum.)...

Yes, hopefully this will be in the new wave of consoles Supposedly the PS3 hard drive will include linux and the XBox360 will be able to be used as a media system (I don't know about if you can surf the net though). Either way, once I get a PS3 windows goes bye bye and I'll install linux, since the only thing it's lacking right now are games. Of course, only if first persons on the PS3 support a keyboard and mouse

 

[niky]

...Of course, only if first persons on the PS3 support a keyboard and mouse

👍

 

[63AvantiR3]

Your suggestion to have GT5 emulate a computer's environment on the PS3 would be a good second alternative if Sony & Polyphony Digital would continually release new cars & tracks to be stored on the PS3 hard drive. If third parties could edit the code to create new and different things. If GT5 came with a side program similar (if not identical) to Mk's Garage Editor. These are some things that could be possible if GT5 came out for personal computer.

The problem I have with Gran Turismo is that I am a car enthusiast (who here isn't?) and so far G.T. doesn't live up to it's "Real Driving Simulator" tagline in my eyes. I can't pick the cam profile that I want to install in the cars, nor can I adjust cam timing of the installed cam. I can't corner-weight my cars; ballast comes close, but we need more. I can't drop a 428 Cobra Jet into a "Bug Eye" Sprite or build Bill Cosby's twin supercharged Cobra ... What gives?

What has been done with hybriding in GT2 & GT3 has gotten the game closer (by a smidge) and makes the game more interesting to me. Porting future versions of G.T. to personal computer would lead to tons of fun. The least that could be done is to open up the game to more real life tuning.

 

[niky]

What has been done with hybriding in GT2 & GT3 has gotten the game closer (by a smidge) and makes the game more interesting to me. Porting future versions of G.T. to personal computer would lead to tons of fun. The least that could be done is to open up the game to more real life tuning.

As long as the tuning option cannot be taken to the extreme that GT3's can, I'm all for it. I'd dearly love to have a more interactive weight-balancing option, and cam-shafts, over-bore or longer-stroke engines and such instead of just a "NA Tune" button... but I'd also want those damn monster engines to have a catastrophic failure every once in a while if you don't tune it right...