Ryu\'s Project Gotham Impressions

It does move at 60fps and there are quite a few cars in each race, but the AI is pretty lame.  I played GT3 again recently and come to think of it, the cars in PGR really aren\'t all that grand.  The damage model is still neat though and the Kudos system is still pretty fun which was used in MSR.

Originally posted by Ryu
It does move at 60fps and there are quite a few cars in each race, but the AI is pretty lame.  I played GT3 again recently and come to think of it, the cars in PGR really aren\'t all that grand.  The damage model is still neat though and the Kudos system is still pretty fun which was used in MSR.

Cool..........thanks ryu.  Its about time they got that game at 60fps.  I had a feeling PG\'s car weren\'t going to look better than gt3.  I can\'t wait to see the car damage.  The strange part gt3 cars only use 4,000 polygons while PG uses 20k.  I guess its how you use the polygons.:thepimp: :thepimp: :thepimp:

The kudos system is going to be in Gotham?

OH GOD NO.

If the kudos system from MSR was a person, then I\'d punch him in the face. Gayest thing ever IMO. I\'d like MSR better if there wasn\'t a kudos system.

*shudders*

Originally posted by AlteredBeast
Tell me why otherwise. Bozco, we have been agreeing alot lately, let\'s keep this clean.

Yeah, I noticed that too, I was planning on keeping it clean anyway though, well from playing it, it just didnt seem like the realistic handling of a car to me, but that just may be my GT series speaking out, that is the racing game I\'m used to

Originally posted by Heretic
It\'s quite telling how the high poly count boasted for cars in PG earlier in the year vs. the numbers GT3 is said to have (40,000 vs. 5,000?) turned out to not "quite beat GT3 in [the graphics] department". Don\'t want to turn an informative review (thanks once again Ryu) into a console debate, just thought the one area where PG should have really blown away GT3 should be highlighted.
 
Based of my own experience I\'m firmly convinced the lack of car damage is a major reason why the GT series has such broad appeal. Not being a hardcore race fan the idea of losing a race for touching a wall or another car seems to me just no fun at all, to the point where I never even tried turning on the damage option offered in GT2.  I played a demo of Jarret & Labonte Stock Car racing on the PSX for maybe a half hour, even if the graphics were perfect instead of ugly I\'d have no interest in that style of racer. The damage factor in PG on the other hand sounds like it would be a nice addition considering most of the challenge is to race against yourself. Correct?

Simulation shouldn\'t be confused with virtual. The realism GT is acclaimed for having is from the feel of driving/racing it accurately simulates for a large variety of car models under different driving conditions. All the while retaining the essential elements of fun that tends to draw in a wide range of gamers, IE it doesn\'t require a perfect performance of already finely honed skills to win a race. I think it was Car and Driver magazine who proclaimed GT3 to be the best racer ever, not the most difficult racer ever.

gt3 doesn\'t use 5,000 per car and gotham does not use 40,000 per car. You are confused my son.

I heard that nagging kudos thing was not in gotham. Boy that was so annoying and sucked.

Originally posted by QuDDus


gt3 doesn\'t use 5,000 per car and gotham does not use 40,000 per car. You are confused my son.

Based on old xbox fanboy talk alone. We\'ve got people besides me talking 4,000 and 20,000 in this thread right now, which isn\'t that far off. What do you say about those numbers, pops?

Also, since you\'re so fond of showing early screen shots QuDDus, check out the old screens for PG compared to the game now. You must remember, there the ones that showed how PG would blow GT3s grafix out of the water.

So Ryu, I heard that the XBox is gonna rock your world.  Um... no.

Seven, you played F355 Challenge? Most. Realistic Driving Sim. Ever.

Oh wait, it\'s on DC, so it must suck.

Eric Jacob,

Yes, I have played F355 - but mostly in the Arcades (with the clutch and everything), so I know how F355 plays. More realistic than GT3? Maybe, due to obvious reasons as you later add (F355 focusing on 1 car) and that GT3 has a handicap due to licence agreements. Since I have never driven a F355 I can\'t say how realistic it is (and neither can you), but I can say that GT3 is very realistic in terms of handling and how the cars feel on track while playing. It\'s something no other driving sim on a console has touched in my eyes.

F355 - used by the Ferrari team in their off season to train!

I said GT3 to be the most realistic racer on any console/PC platform, based on various magazines, quotes from car manufactures themselves who have commented on GT3 and my own experience.

-super steep learning curve (like driving a racing car )

yeah sure, a hard game makes it realistic right? :rolleyes:

-only camera view is in-the-car view.

makes it the "Most. Realistic Driving Sim. Ever."? :rolleyes:

-near perfectly rendered models of the F355, I believe 20 on the track on the same time, with no detail loss.

want to compare F355 graphics to GT3s? Be my guest!

BTW: very amusing how you state "Most. Realistic Driving Sim. Ever.", but state wrong numbers (20 cars on track -> when it actually only has 8 on track, which just goes to show you\'ve probably never played the game yourself or long enough to really make such statements. Nice try though, you just lost my respect and maybe that of a few others aswell.

Have a nice day.

Those who keep using the term \'racer\' need to play some other racing games beyond GT and Ridge Racer.

I\'ve posted about this in the past when someone asked if I could point out a better \'racer\', so I\'ll just cut and paste those thoughts here;

The most \'realistic\' RACER ever? Don\'t make me laugh, what other racing games have you played - why don\'t you try Grand Prix Legends, Grand Prix 3 and Jarret & Labonte Stock Car Racing for starters.

What could they add? \'wtf more could they have done\' Hmm...

i)Car Damage - for the most \'realistic\' racer ever don\'t you find it funny you can slam into a wall at 150 mph and nothing happens to your car. Don\'t start that bull**** about licenses J&L had cars from Nissan, Toyota, Chrysler, BMW, Audi, and Ford and DID have car damage. Of course Polyphony probably couldn\'t get ALL the manufacturers to agree to have their cars damaged, but why couldn\'t we have non-visible damage? Oh, but that would mean they\'d have to spend less time on the graphics.
ii)Rotational Collision Physics - if you tail end a car in GT3 it simply goes faster (ala Mario Kart), just watch a Nascar race to see what really happens. If you tried to bank off other cars when turning (like you can in GT3) in GPL both cars would go spinning out.
iii)Improve the AI - they don\'t even acknowledge your presence, they simply drive around their pre-defined paths - compare this to the games I just mentioned where opposing cars attack and defend the racing line. How the f uck can you call it the ultimate \'racer\' when you\'re driving against idiots who don\'t even know you\'re there.
iv)A larger field - only 5 other cars to race against? What is this, GT Mario Kart? J&L has a field of 11 other cars, while the GP games feature full 20+ fields...but of course if they added more cars to race against the graphics wouldn\'t be pretty.

Play some REAL racing games (ie not Ridge Racer and Sega GT) before you call GT3 the ultimate racing game, I don\'t even consider it a racing game - it\'s a driving game, a damn good one at that, but the actual racing model is atrocious. For all my complaints about the game I still like it, I got to about 60% before I finally got bored of simply racing against the track.

$hit go out and rent Nascar Heat 2002 - that game is much more of a real racing game than GT3 - it has proper collision physics and a decent racing model (the drafting model is spectacular).

Of course none of those games I mentioned have such nice graphics, and that\'s the bottom line, in the \'greatest racer ever\' you can\'t even adjust the sfx/music levels, it doesn\'t save the lap times for all the courses (this was in GT2), you can\'t customise your cars (this was in GT2) and you have LESS cars than GT2.

Those who call GT3 the best racer ever are either a)graphics whores or b)have never played real racing games or c)GManJoe.

J&L is the best pure racing console game money can buy, it has licenced cars, more tracks than GT3, an excellent damage model, incredible AI, and a 12 car field and all this on the 32 bit PSX - of course it didn\'t sell because the graphics whores at Gamespot, Videogames.com, IGN, and Gaming-Age didn\'t like the visuals so it didn\'t get the press it deserved. I can say the same thing for EA Sports\' Fifa series as compared to Konami\'s ISS Pro series.

In the end graphics sell, they sold GT3. We look at screenshots of games and if they look poor we write off the game. If EA Sports produced Madden 2003 with the same gameplay, less features, but better graphics they would be crucified...unless their graphics were as special as those in GT3 - then it\'s okay, we can put on the blinders, not see the faults in the game, call it the best ever, and throw progress, constructive criticism and inovation down the toilet.

Maybe for GT4 they will give even less cars, less tracks, same gameplay, but if they improve the graphics even further I\'m sure it will be widely hailed as the greatest racing game ever.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If GT3 had RRV\'s graphics it would have been slaughtered by the gaming press and the average gamer; \'it\'s the same as GT2\', \'hey, how come there are less cars\', \'the AI is still dumb\' etc. But all that was ignored because of the jaw-dropping visuals, so can you blame Sony? I can\'t.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gran Turismo 3 is the DOA3 of driving games, massive graphical upgrade, minor gameplay upgrade = best game ever....

Those who think GT3 is a great racing game need to play some solid PC racing titles - Grand Prix Legends wipes the floor with Gran Turismo 3 in terms of the racing model. I still don\'t know how you can consider a game that has only a SIX car field, no damage (and therefore no repurcussions for driving like a maniac) and Mario Kart AI is the BEST \'racer\' of all time.

And for those who think GT3 models it\'s cars totally realistically might want to read this too;  http://www.digitalsports.com/ps2/gt3/review.html

Seven,
Of course, most car manufacturers would call GT the best \'racer\' ever - it\'s the top selling game and their cars being in there give them the best exposure. Many companies had to actually GO TO Polyphony to get their cars in the game. It has nothing to do with the actual gameplay itself.

These thoughts from another thread as well:

a)Like I said before (many, many, MANY) times Jarret and Labonte Stock Car Racing had more than 70 real-life car models (Nissans, Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, BMWs, Audis etc) and still had car damage. You could really F-up those cars - everything from messing up the wheel-alignment to smashing the headlights to side impact collisions to smashing your windshield to even your car bursting into flames when you get into a really nasty accident. The damage isn\'t there for aesthetic reasons either - it forces you to race smart and it adds a very real sense of danger to the races. Not to mention there are 11 other cars you\'re racing against and the opposing driver AI in that game is light years ahead of the \'AI\' in GT3.

ddaryl and I discussed the damage in GT3 and we came to the conclusion that perhaps not ALL of the manufacturers wanted their cars damaged - so it\'s clear then, that Polyphony decided to chose car selection over gameplay. Even if they couldn\'t include visual damage they still could have had non-visible damage LIKE THEY HAD IN THE ARCADE MODE OF GT2!!!!!!! That\'s yet another feature present in GT2, but absent in GT3. Why was that ignored in most reviews? Because the graphics are so nice. Like I said before, if GT3 had RRV\'s graphics everyone would have pointed out many of the faults I\'ve been pointing out, but since it looks nice almost everone ignores gameplay faults, so again, Sony\'s strategy of making the games look prettier instead of more innovative or more fun seems to make sense since GT3 sold by the truckload. I don\'t agree with it, but the proof is all over the net.

Lavan,

I use the term "racer" simply because Gran Turismo 3 is a racer (hence racing against others). It\'s not really a big deal. I do agree with you that Gt3 has its flaws, but for it not to be considered a racing game because of this is harsh and wrong.

The most \'realistic\' RACER ever? Don\'t make me laugh, what other racing games have you played - why don\'t you try Grand Prix Legends, Grand Prix 3 and Jarret & Labonte Stock Car Racing for starters.

I won\'t compare GT3 to a \'Grand Prix\' game, because they are so different and can\'t be compared. Cars and gameplay are so much different. Sure, GT3 features some F1 cars, but those can\'t be taken seriously and are more to be considered as a gag and speed up for the game. If you get much joy out of comparing Gt3 type games to grand prix\'s, fine by me.

i)Car Damage - for the most \'realistic\' racer ever don\'t you find it funny you can slam into a wall at 150 mph and nothing happens to your car. Don\'t start that bull**** about licenses J&L had cars from Nissan, Toyota, Chrysler, BMW, Audi, and Ford and DID have car damage. Of course Polyphony probably couldn\'t get ALL the manufacturers to agree to have their cars damaged, but why couldn\'t we have non-visible damage? Oh, but that would mean they\'d have to spend less time on the graphics.

I\'ve already replied to this. Believe it or not, but accoarding to the licence of \'certain\' car manufacturers, the cars are not allowed to fall to the side (incl. some kind of damages). It\'s cool that Nissan, Toyota, Chrysler BMW, AUdi and Ford do allow this, but that does not change the fact that some do not want to see their cars get smashed up (Mercedes feard their image could be hurt because they had trouble with the A Class falling to the side). It\'s a sad issue, but hardly Polyphony\'s fault. Now, even if say 9 out of 10 agree to the damage, that one left is still enough not to use it at all. By the way, what happens to the games you mentioned if you slam into the wall if 150 mph? Anything other than "end of race" and "R.I.P." would be unrealistic aswell.

ii)Rotational Collision Physics - if you tail end a car in GT3 it simply goes faster (ala Mario Kart), just watch a Nascar race to see what really happens. If you tried to bank off other cars when turning (like you can in GT3) in GPL both cars would go spinning out.

Absolutely right. IMHO, biggest flaw of GT3.

iii)Improve the AI - they don\'t even acknowledge your presence, they simply drive around their pre-defined paths - compare this to the games I just mentioned where opposing cars attack and defend the racing line. How the f uck can you call it the ultimate \'racer\' when you\'re driving against idiots who don\'t even know you\'re there.

Unfortunately the AI isn\'t something to be proud of in GT3. I agree completely and think Polyphony should put some more effort into AI in future releases. I\'ll get back to this at the end of my reply.

iv)A larger field - only 5 other cars to race against? What is this, GT Mario Kart? J&L has a field of 11 other cars, while the GP games feature full 20+ fields...but of course if they added more cars to race against the graphics wouldn\'t be pretty.

While you might have a problem with \'only\' 6 cars on track, others don\'t. It\'s something that might improve, but honestly, I\'d rather have one intelligent computer opponent than 19 idiots. I am not saying that those grand prix games have idiots like in GT3, but I play grand prix games too and the AI isn\'t that good either as you make it to be. (Note that I am not even comparing it to GT3.) And the graphics remark is pretty lame. Some actually prefer 6 cars to say 20 and better graphics.

$hit go out and rent Nascar Heat 2002 - that game is much more of a real racing game than GT3 - it has proper collision physics and a decent racing model (the drafting model is spectacular).

I don\'t play Nascar because I don\'t get much joy out of them (I think they are pretty borring, never liked \'em).

Play some REAL racing games (ie not Ridge Racer and Sega GT) before you call GT3 the ultimate racing game, I don\'t even consider it a racing game - it\'s a driving game, a damn good one at that, but the actual racing model is atrocious. For all my complaints about the game I still like it, I got to about 60% before I finally got bored of simply racing against the track.

Of course none of those games I mentioned have such nice graphics, and that\'s the bottom line, in the \'greatest racer ever\' you can\'t even adjust the sfx/music levels, it doesn\'t save the lap times for all the courses (this was in GT2), you can\'t customise your cars (this was in GT2) and you have LESS cars than GT2.

Those who call GT3 the best racer ever are either a)graphics whores or b)have never played real racing games or c)GManJoe.

Maybe for GT4 they will give even less cars, less tracks, same gameplay, but if they improve the graphics even further I\'m sure it will be widely hailed as the greatest racing game ever.

I do understand your points you\'re making and I feel the same way too about the flaws in what is supposed to be the \'most realistic racer\'. But just because the AI is crap and not having any damage does not take away the fact that the cars feal more lifelike than in any other game that I\'ve played. Would it make Ridge Racer more realistic than GT3 if the cars would have damage built in and proper AI? No, not to me. I consider handling and how the game represents the cars within to be more important than those flaws (that GT3 has) you pointed out. Show me a game where you can tune your car, change and modify your car and actually "feel" the difference as much as in GT3? Increase any car settings and you will notice it on track. Play Rally and you will note the difference. Hell, even the wet course feels so real. That\'s what makes GT3 so much more realistic to me. And I can assure you, I am not a graphics whore. This is why it is the most realistic racer to me (No, yet again, I am not comparing it to any Nascar or grandprix game).

Gran Turismo 3 is the DOA3 of driving games, massive graphical upgrade, minor gameplay upgrade = best game ever....

Yes, massive graphical upgrade, but only minor gameplay upgrade? Not really, I played both games a lot and in GT3, cars actually feel real. You call the handling and physics in the Rally mode and wet stage.. minor gameplay upgrade? I am sorry, I don\'t. BTW: I never said "best game", I said most realistic that I\'ve played (comparing it to similar games, not grandprix).

Seven,
Of course, most car manufacturers would call GT the best \'racer\' ever - it\'s the top selling game and their cars being in there give them the best exposure. Many companies had to actually GO TO Polyphony to get their cars in the game. It has nothing to do with the actual gameplay itself.

Actually, they never said "best racer" ever, or at least I don\'t recall them doing so. They said that the cars handle pretty much like their real counterpart in every aspect and something like it being one of the most realistic racers/driving games or what ever you wish to call it.

As I already said above. Just because of the flaws (AI, damage and crashs), I still consider it to be more realistic in terms of handling and feel to it than any other racer I have played to date. Ridge Racer style gameplay with those things GT3 is missing doesn\'t make it more realistic. After what I have read and already pointed out, I am not the only one who thinks like that.

As for GT4. Like you, I hope they eliminate those flaws and make it a bit more challenging.

Greetz

Phil

Originally posted by Lavan
These thoughts from another thread as well:

a)Like I said before (many, many, MANY) times Jarret and Labonte Stock Car Racing had more than 70 real-life car models (Nissans, Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, BMWs, Audis etc) and still had car damage. You could really F-up those cars - everything from messing up the wheel-alignment to smashing the headlights to side impact collisions to smashing your windshield to even your car bursting into flames when you get into a really nasty accident. The damage isn\'t there for aesthetic reasons either - it forces you to race smart and it adds a very real sense of danger to the races. Not to mention there are 11 other cars you\'re racing against and the opposing driver AI in that game is light years ahead of the \'AI\' in GT3.

ddaryl and I discussed the damage in GT3 and we came to the conclusion that perhaps not ALL of the manufacturers wanted their cars damaged - so it\'s clear then, that Polyphony decided to chose car selection over gameplay. Even if they couldn\'t include visual damage they still could have had non-visible damage LIKE THEY HAD IN THE ARCADE MODE OF GT2!!!!!!! That\'s yet another feature present in GT2, but absent in GT3. Why was that ignored in most reviews? Because the graphics are so nice. Like I said before, if GT3 had RRV\'s graphics everyone would have pointed out many of the faults I\'ve been pointing out, but since it looks nice almost everone ignores gameplay faults, so again, Sony\'s strategy of making the games look prettier instead of more innovative or more fun seems to make sense since GT3 sold by the truckload. I don\'t agree with it, but the proof is all over the net.

to race smart and it adds a very real sense of danger to the races. Not to mention there are 11 other cars you\'re racing against and the opposing driver AI in that game is light years ahead of the \'AI\' in GT3.

ddaryl and I discussed the damage in GT3 and we came to the conclusion that perhaps not ALL of the manufacturers wanted their cars damaged - so it\'s clear then, that Polyphony decided to chose car selection over gameplay. Even if they couldn\'t include visual damage they still could have had non-visible damage LIKE THEY HAD IN THE ARCADE MODE OF GT2!!!!!!! That\'s yet another feature present in GT2, but absent in GT3. Why was that ignored in most reviews? Because the graphics are so nice. Like I said before, if GT3 had RRV\'s graphics everyone would have pointed out many of the faults I\'ve been pointing out, but since it looks nice almost everone ignores gameplay faults, so again, Sony\'s strategy of making the games look prettier instead of more innovative or more fun seems to make sense since GT3 sold by the truckload. I don\'t agree with it, but the proof is all over the net.

ah, the damage thing. Sorry, kind a missed that in my reply. As I stated somewhere in my above post, Yamauchi, the executive producer of GT commented on this matter.

Yamauchi stated, that he and his team would not add damage of any kind in the game until the agreement issues (with the car manufacturers) are resolved and the possibilities for realistic crashes and realtime damage are there. Seing that GT3 was a total rush (first GT2000 until they rebuild the whole graphics engine from scratch which resulted in a major delay) and then pressure from Sony to release the game in time to deliever the first killer app. I think time pressure was one of the reasons why the AI isn\'t up to par with other titles and those minor flaws. Yamauchi continued that damage would become an issue again when they have the resources to complete it. As an example he said that a car crashing at high speed into a wall would end the game immidiately, which would add a better sense of realism. He continued to say that damage would be somehting to be considered in GT4, also real time weather effects and changes. If they can get that realistic damage in there and those weather effects, I think the GT series would finally get that major change that most sceptical gamers are waiting for. I know I am...

Thanks for the clean reply btw.
Greetz

Phil

Hey Phil,

Thanks for the long reply, most people just tell me I suck and leave it at that.

I still think it\'s fair to compare Grand Prix games to GT games - in the end the goal is to RACE against other cars and finish first, in both games.

Originally posted by seven
By the way, what happens to the games you mentioned if you slam into the wall if 150 mph? Anything other than "end of race" and "R.I.P." would be unrealistic aswell.

In Grand Prix Legends, Grand Prix 3, J&L, Nascar Thunder and a whole host of other games, if you slam into a wall at 100+ mph that\'s the end of the race for you. In J&L (I use this as an example since it\'s on a console), you can even have gearbox problems and I\'ve had races where I\'ve got into a collision, and haven\'t been able to go higher than 3rd gear and had to be careful not to over-rev the engine and blow it.

I still think you underrate the AI in other games, or overrate the \'AI\' in GT3 - in J&L the opposing cars respond to your actions, rather than drive in a set path. Just look at GT3 replays, often the same car will spin out at the same part of the track each lap. The best way to test the AI, is to go to a course in GT3 where there\'s a tight, narrow turn, and park your car sideways blocking the way. The cars will come round the track, and just plough right into you if you position your car right - they won\'t even slow down. Do the same thing in J&L and the cars will actually slow down and go AROUND you, even if it means going off the tarmac. That, essentially is my problem with the \'AI\' in GT3 - of course, this is the same type of \'AI\' in Ridge Racer, but the problem becomes more apparent BECAUSE GT3 looks so damn real, and because the handling so good.

Oh, and if you want a great racing game that exhibits handling properties even BETTER than GT3 play Grand Prix Legends on the PC - it\'s several years old, butt ugly by today\'s standards, but if you turn off all the driving aids it will take you WEEKS before you even FINISH a race, let alone contend for top spot - and all through it\'s not so frustrating that you want to quit, or unfairly hard that you feel cheated.

Speaking of cheating, another problem with GT3\'s AI is the SHAMELESS cheating by the CPU in races where they pit - not only do the cars go into the pits often on the last lap of races (idiotic choices), they come out of the pits and can often make up 15-20 seconds racing at rediculous speed - if they could race that fast without cheating how come they didn\'t do it at other times in the race or in qualifying? It\'s just cheating to artificially keep the races closer.

[I can\'t post long threads for some reason, must be my ****house ISP]

Depite my complaints though, I still liked GT3 a lot - but the shortcommings in AI and the racing model, in what is essentially a racing game, cut short the longevity and at the same time made those statements (not made by you, but by the general graphic-whore media and others) that GT3 was the ultimate RACING game, rediculous.

Try out J&L if you have the cash, I assure you your jaw will drop the first time you approach a corner and a CPU driver actually outbrakes YOU and blocks you off.

Ahh, now ya got me started, I can\'t stop!

I think the two main reasons why I\'m so vocal about the faults in GT3 are, firstly because of the major over-hyping of the game by the media - like I said before, there are many faults in the game and many sites even admitted as much (IGN and Gamespot in particular) and yet the game was given near-perfect scores. Why? Because it looks so damn beautiful.

And secondly, because of what GT3 does right - the graphics and out of this world, and the handling and control are great, and what needed work - basically the racing model and it\'s components were ignored - when three year old PC games and two year old PSX games could get those components right. I mean, you\'re racing along at 100mph the scenery looks almost photorealistic, the frame-rate is silky smooth, everything looks (Say it Sammy) \'Sooo reaaal\', until you smack into the back of a car and it doesn\'t even dent - it just goes faster, and in that instant realism goes out the window.

IMO, if Polyphony don\'t want to add damage in any form because they feel it won\'t appeal to the average joe and they want more car selection, and if they don\'t want to put in at least competent AI, then I think they should do away with the \'race\' charade all together. When you get a good car in GT3 you\'re always racing against the track anyway, so why not make GT4 an \'urban rally\' simulator - make it like a rally game, put in new massive ubran courses like Tokyo and Seattle, and make it a rally game where you race against the clock. You then don\'t have to worry about cars bumping into you Mario Kart style, and the lack of a damage model doesn\'t come into play. In fact, if they could get a good selection of long courses I\'d love to have GT4 go that way.