Gaming Gran Turismo 5 Prologue

[Tim S]

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2008/...o_5_prologue/1

Gran Turismo 5 Prologue is finally here, filling the gap until the full game. Is it worth the cost and can it entice more players to the PlayStation 3, or is it little more than tech demo which you'll have to pay for? Andy finds out!

[FaIIen]

nice to see you judged the game as a complete title ...not

[DXR_13KE]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

£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]

http://www.gamesradar.com/f/gt5-prol...04111423404081

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Juppun]

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]

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