bit-gamer.net

Gran Turismo 5 Prologue

Comments 1 to 25 of 58

Reply
FaIIen 12th April 2008, 08:46 Quote
nice to see you judged the game as a complete title ...not
DXR_13KE 12th April 2008, 08:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by FaIIen
nice to see you judged the game as a complete title ...not

nice to see you judge a review without reading it..... not

by the way, my cousin got the 4 prologue thinking it was the full game and ended up not buying the full game, he was to angry because of this.
FaIIen 12th April 2008, 09:06 Quote
"But on the downside it doesn’t ever feel really complete. The lack of progressive difficulty and the limited number of tracks means races can get a little monotonous."

and that is why it is called prologue , for what it delivers as a "tech demo" i would give it an 8 at least.
CardJoe 12th April 2008, 09:08 Quote
I haven't actually played the game myself - I'm not a big racing game fan and, since I can't even drive figured it would be more fair to give the review to Andy - but I have to agree with the points Andy makes. I've never paid for a tech demo before in my life and I don't intend to start now.
zero0ne 12th April 2008, 09:10 Quote
I'm sorry, but I hope that the no damage thing isnt what made this a 7 instead of a 8 / 9....

1) You do know that damage has NEVER been in a GT game...

From the get-go, they havent put damage in there because they dont want it in there unless its perfect, and by that I mean a car crashes into the wall at 160? yeah they want to model the exact crash, the complete compression of the frame, etc etc etc...

BUT

I do believe that they are working on a patch to add "damage" to it, though i'm not sure if it will be a full featured damage model, or more of a you crash, and your body doesn't show it, but the inner parts etc do.

the graphics alone should get this to a 8.
(You were playing @ 1080p right?)

I'm not trying to be an ass here or anything, but it just seems you are rating this game with your standardized rating scheme, and this game just doesn't deserve that, it's never been molded to the "generic racing game" standard. This games #1 priority is realism, I mean professional racers use this game to get ready for tracks... That's saying a lot. everything else is secondary in their eyes.
CardJoe 12th April 2008, 09:23 Quote
We rate the game to the usual rating scheme that we use with all games, yes. To say that this game is intrinsically 'better' than other games and deserves to get a higher score or be measured by a different scale is ludicrous. It's a racing game - a very detailed one, yes, but still a racing game and it is fundamentally the same as the last five games in the series.

If GT5P did something utterly genre shattering and world changing then there could be an arguement to say that it gets a different score purely on merit - but this isn't the huge step forward that Doom or Quake was. This is just another racing simulation in a series, if we reduce it the basic components, and that doesn't change no matter how big a fan you are.

Andy will probably clairfy later, but I think his main concerns were a weak difficulty curve, weak AI, problems with multiplayer hosting, few variations of levels and so on. Damage to me is a big thing too, but I admit I'm not a big one for racers.

For a developer to say they aren't integrating something until they have it absolutely perfect is valid to a degree, but to take it to the level of removing a fundamental aspect of the sport away seems a bit silly if you ask me and, as it is, removes any consequence for reckless driving from the game. On that point though, I'm willing to admit that it may just be me and I don't think it contributed massively to the score. 7 isn't a bad score though - we do use the entire 1-10 scale remember!
ToMMo 12th April 2008, 09:46 Quote
I've not played the game for long but I found it slightly boring because in order to stay on the track you need to follow the racing line. I can understand for a simulator this is brilliant but for entertainment purposes I want to drive my way, as recklessly as I can. Unfortunately for me GT5P makes me drive its way and does nothing to restrain or penalise me from pummelling other drivers. As I said, I've not spent hours playing it so it may grow on me. I do agree it's damn drop dead gorgeous though. Fair score imo, good review Andy.
zero0ne 12th April 2008, 09:47 Quote
how about the fact that its using ray tracing?

(at least in the showroom / shop / etc areas)

I understand the scale part, it was moronic of me to say you should rate it differently than other games; I just feel that calling it a "Racing game" is completely off base, and puts it in the class of need for speed / midnight club / etc, where as it has never been about that, and has always been about being as close to the real deal when it comes to racing professionally.

(it would be like comparing MS flight simulator to Air Combat 4*) (*I cant think of any dog fighting / mission based military like flying games)
AlexB 12th April 2008, 09:57 Quote
It's got the best F1 car a in a racing game yet, too. The F1 car round Suzuka is a great experience.

Playing it and loving it. 8/10 for me. Loses two marks - 1 for the pants online modes - but they are patching these. 1 for the mostly-pants AI.
kempez 12th April 2008, 10:24 Quote
For me the game loses marks due to the glitchy updates and the lack of full car upgrade facility, making Forza a more "complete" game in the fact that it is a full game, not a tech-demo like this is, albeit an expensive tech demo

The Aliasing does annoy me at times but most of the time the models are perfect, better to my eyes by a margin than Forza and just about better than PGR.

Whilst I agree on the "bumper cars", the game becomes a lot more challenging when you do the manufacturer or S races which punish you for bumping into people. Also it's a good idea to take off the driving aids from the start, or use minimal driving aids.

I think 7 is a little harsh but it's all about opinions :)
Jipa 12th April 2008, 11:08 Quote
£20 for a tech demo seems like a ton to me. I guess Sony has figured a way to double the number of games on the PS3 by selling the demos as a games of their own? :> No damage to the cars seems really silly to me, maybe I'm not a simulator kind of person, but talking about realism and how there's no damage in the same comment really turns me off.
LeMaltor 12th April 2008, 11:23 Quote
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/gt5-prologue-car-damage-confirmed/a-20080404111423404081

If that's right then the damage is a mute point. For me it always has been though, I know GTR2 isnt fun when you do a big race and some idiot hits you (or you make a mistake) and ends your race.
kempez 12th April 2008, 11:38 Quote
There is a patch being added for game damage, but let's also remember that this is a pre-cursor to the full game so adding functionality is expected.

I agree £20 is a bit OTT, but the game is actually pretty damn big when you take a look at it and play it, Arcade has some pretty cool modes like drift which is fun (and in fact makes up part of some full games out there).

Replay value is good too, using different cars on the challenging tracks :)
Swafeman 12th April 2008, 11:47 Quote
20 quids a lot for a demo, they wont add damage to prologue tho, only to the real game, and id expect if there was a patch for prologue, sony will make you pay for it (like you do for extra cars) making it a lot more than 20 quid
CardJoe 12th April 2008, 12:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by zero0ne
how about the fact that its using ray tracing?

(at least in the showroom / shop / etc areas)

I understand the scale part, it was moronic of me to say you should rate it differently than other games; I just feel that calling it a "Racing game" is completely off base, and puts it in the class of need for speed / midnight club / etc, where as it has never been about that, and has always been about being as close to the real deal when it comes to racing professionally.

(it would be like comparing MS flight simulator to Air Combat 4*) (*I cant think of any dog fighting / mission based military like flying games)

A racing simulator then - but still, ray tracing doesn't instantly equal a better game. I enjoy Offroad Velociraptor Safari more than Crysis because, although Crysis has better graphics, Offroad is more fun to play.
kempez 12th April 2008, 12:40 Quote
Let's get this straight: there's enough content in the game (if you've actually played it, which I suspect not many commenting have) to give more gameplay than a lot of full games. I do think that £20 is a bit too much and perhaps a tenner would have been a more appropriate price-point. But then, if they can charge £20 and peeps will buy it, why not? Makes good business sense.
Goty 12th April 2008, 13:42 Quote
This has always been the problem with the reception the Gran Turismo series. It's a simulator, not an arcade game. People who like arcade-style racers will hate GT, people who look for accuracy in game mechanics will love it. That's the way it is and the way its always been.
Orca 12th April 2008, 13:52 Quote
Andy, you talk about the lack of damage, that is fair. But I felt you should have mentioned the penalty system in the game after A Class. If anything that is a big incentive to drive safely.
kempez 12th April 2008, 14:21 Quote
How long was the game played for Andy? Did you complete S Class, all manufacturers trophy's and all of arcade mode on all game types? I'm not criticising, just interested :)
Bindibadgi 12th April 2008, 14:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by zero0ne
I'm sorry, but I hope that the no damage thing isnt what made this a 7 instead of a 8 / 9....

1) You do know that damage has NEVER been in a GT game...

From the get-go, they havent put damage in there because they dont want it in there unless its perfect, and by that I mean a car crashes into the wall at 160? yeah they want to model the exact crash, the complete compression of the frame, etc etc etc...

BUT

I do believe that they are working on a patch to add "damage" to it, though i'm not sure if it will be a full featured damage model, or more of a you crash, and your body doesn't show it, but the inner parts etc do.

the graphics alone should get this to a 8.
(You were playing @ 1080p right?)

I'm not trying to be an ass here or anything, but it just seems you are rating this game with your standardized rating scheme, and this game just doesn't deserve that, it's never been molded to the "generic racing game" standard. This games #1 priority is realism, I mean professional racers use this game to get ready for tracks... That's saying a lot. everything else is secondary in their eyes.

You contradict yourself - you harp on about realism then claim no damage isn't a factor? You can't have it both ways - it can't be on "the most powerful console ever" yet offer no destruction. There's MORE than enough Cell power there for physics.

You can't rate a game on graphics alone, yet demand it for gameplay, otherwise the Wii would not be the most popular console.

It is a simulator, yes, but its a tech demo. The Fanboys will love it (and clearly do ;) ;)) but it's DMC4 all over again.
themax 12th April 2008, 14:58 Quote
I wish people would stop acting like Prologue is some new PS3 scheme. Look at the PS2 library. They have this nifty game called GT4: Plogue that sold quite well before the official GT4 released. Put your Sony conspiracies aside and blame the fans for the Prologue release, not Sony or Polyphony Digital. If the first one wasn't so successful you probably wouldn't see this one released.

And another thing. THERE IS A DEMO. It's on the Japanese PSN. Prologue and the demo are not the same (and I am not talking about GT:HD).
kempez 12th April 2008, 15:07 Quote
I think a lot of ordinary gamers love it as well as as "fanboys". I prefer Forza overall, but it's a good crack :)
Tim S 12th April 2008, 15:23 Quote
I love the GT series (I bought a PS2 twice just for the series!) and I'll buy a PS3 when GT5 comes out, but I'm not paying for a tech demo--albeit one that's pretty packed with content. It was the same for me with GT4 Prologue too - I sold my PS2 after finishing GT3 and then bought a PSTwo to play GT4 when it came out. This time around I kept hold of the console though.
themax 12th April 2008, 15:37 Quote
On another note. I agree with the review. A 7 is pretty good score for what is only a portion of the upcoming completed game. If it scored to high I honestly wouldn't believe it and wouldn't accept it. As long Polyphony Digital keeps on pace and refines what we see already in GT5:Prologue it should play much better than Prologue. The damage mechanics are coming in a patch hopefully this fall (but still, can't rate it based on what is due out) and GT5 Full should ship with Damage. One thing I partially disagree with is comparing it next to Forza. Compared to Forza the game will NEVER be as complete or as good because it never was at the time it shipped. Forza is a fully fleshed game completed with over a year of DLC and patches. On the flip side, I think it's good that the game in this form is so readily compared against Forza 2 (given it's overwhelming and obvious cons as an unfinished game) because it means the devs are on the right track if it creates discussion on the differences in the two so much.
Jamie 12th April 2008, 16:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by zero0ne
I'm sorry, but I hope that the no damage thing isnt what made this a 7 instead of a 8 / 9....

1) You do know that damage has NEVER been in a GT game...

From the get-go, they havent put damage in there because they dont want it in there unless its perfect, and by that I mean a car crashes into the wall at 160? yeah they want to model the exact crash, the complete compression of the frame, etc etc etc...

BUT

I do believe that they are working on a patch to add "damage" to it, though i'm not sure if it will be a full featured damage model, or more of a you crash, and your body doesn't show it, but the inner parts etc do.

the graphics alone should get this to a 8.
(You were playing @ 1080p right?)

I'm not trying to be an ass here or anything, but it just seems you are rating this game with your standardized rating scheme, and this game just doesn't deserve that, it's never been molded to the "generic racing game" standard. This games #1 priority is realism, I mean professional racers use this game to get ready for tracks... That's saying a lot. everything else is secondary in their eyes.

:)
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums