Jump to content

Talk:Gran Turismo 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bias toward American cars?

[edit]

Anyone ever notice that there seems to be a general bias towards American cars in the game? There is exceptions, but it seems that most of the American cars are sluggish is most respects when compared to other cars in the same class.

With respect to many aspects of performance and reliability, American cars tend to pale in comparison to those manufactured in Europe and Japan, as a general rule (compare them for yourself). The game designers were just being realistic, IMO. However, I think this discussion is better placed in a gaming site, not here. This is an encyclopedic resource, and all of this unfortunately falls under the category of OR, and therefore has no relevance to the article. Eganio 00:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If only the manufacturers had taken note, eh? The point is true, and it's worth mentioning, if only in a sidelong manner. Something along the lines of "Rather than restrict the in-game vehicles to those sold in each market in which the game is sold, players are given the freedom to experience driving in cars uncommon or absent from their own market". Or maybe not. Just a thought.--Rfsmit (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AI used without explanation?

[edit]

I noticed I had used "AI" ("Artificial Intelligence" or "Artificially Intelligent") in reference to A-spec points, without an explanation, but I was not the first to do so. I can't decide where to define it to what degree, or if it's even necessary these days, so I'm just making this note here for consideration. Simply linking to AI (Artificial intelligence) could be considered, but might not be totally appropriate. And the AI or Artificial intelligence articles might take strange twists in future, meaning they wouldn't give a confused reader a succinct idea of what was meant. Is linking to artificial intelligence (wiktionary) acceptable practice in wikipedia? Presumably if this problem, it applies to other articles in the Gran Turismo "family".--SportWagon 17:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think using AI for explanation is alright. If the proportional significance of video games with regard to the meaning of AI ever peaks and ceases to merit note in the introduction of AI, then the term AI itself will no longer need any explanation. At least that's my forecast. :-) ENeville 20:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I only now see that there is Game AI, but I think that's a poor title and the article should be moved, probably to AI (game). ENeville 20:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PAL version

[edit]

729 cars in the PAL version? what kind of vehicles they have added? Noble M15? Pagani Zonda Roadster? Chevrolet Corvette C6? Can anyone know? Please? Professional Gamer 21 October 2006

GT4 data to be transferred in Gran Turismo HD

[edit]

SportWagon, is it possible that the GT4 data from the PS2 memory card transfer in Gran Turismo HD? Professional Gamer 28 October 2006

A-spec points

[edit]

We should perhaps mention 250 point challenges. That's why I didn't rv that edit myself. Also, we don't make it clear that events giving same A-spec points aren't necessarily equivalent. That's mostly because your score is based on all cars in the field, not just the second-place one you must beat in order to get any points. I allude to this when I say "after a large number of events". But I can't think of a clear way to say any of this right now, let alone deciding how encyclopedic (or even NPOV) it will be.--SportWagon 18:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC) What are the points for anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.17.170 (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GTO Trivia Should Be Deleted?

[edit]

Under trivia, it currently says...

  • In the game, the American Pontiac GTO 5.7 has more horsepower than its Australian version, the Holden Monaro, despite the fact that they both use the same engine.

That point has a bit of an interesting history. I don't see the point as worth mentioning, really. Originally someone appeared to imply it must be mistake that there is a horsepower discrepancy, but I would say 328 versus 350 could be due to the type of tune done for the type of market. In the heyday of American muscle cars, you'd get more variance than that when the cars rolled off the line, based on the semi-random nature of tuning under assembly-line conditions. Some portions of the history suggest maybe some think it worth mentioning merely that the "The American Pontiac GTO 5.7 is also available in the game as the Australian Holden Monaro". I could agree with that, although if voting, I'd vote for simply removing the entire point. I am also totally ambivalent about mentioning the horsepower discrepancy.

This trivia isn't needed. The Holden Monaro at the time (2004) had a lower tuned version of the LS1 (245kW/333hp) to the Pontiac GTO (261kW/350hp). The LS1 engine was deliberately tuned up by Holden for the GTO.Mr. Pointy 17:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, and I know this is 2.5 years late, but the GTO is the US market version of the Monaro, so it would be clearer and more accurate to say "The Australian Holden Monaro is also available in the game as the American Pontiac GTO 5.7".--Rfsmit (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead (dormant) reference to somewhat silly criticism

[edit]
  • One reviewer expressed disappointment about some open top cars, except those that came with a foldable roof which can only be used in single-car time-trial or photo-shoot mode and cannot be raced against other cars.<ref name= Bytesector>[http://www.bytesector.com/data/bs-article.asp?ID=425 Bytesector review] URL accessed [[September 26]], [[2006]]</ref>

Bytesector claims to be coming back on October 1, 2006. That's currently over a month ago, but, in any case, who knows whether the referenced ancient history will come back with it? But the attempts by people to qualify the criticism have resulted in a silly sentence. I'll remove ", except those that came with a foldable roof" since it is covered by "some", but I can no longer track down the review to re-evaluate the paraphrase of the actual criticism.--SportWagon 22:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cr900 Car?

[edit]

Someone edited to suggest there was a Cr900 used car. My guess would be they have bought a Cr3600 used car which would then show a garage value of Cr900.--SportWagon 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

www.gtplanet.net does indicate a car for Cr2,405, and a couple of others under Cr4000, but they seem somewhat anomalous. Cars available at the start of the game are somewhat of an issue. Changing Cr4000 to Cr2400 would arguably be correct, but might give an unrealistic view. I cannot substantiate Cr900, however.--SportWagon 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approximately Cr4,000 can get you a 1979 Nissan Bluebird; quite a nice and fun starter car. Cheaper cars really aren't all-round starters. Other reasonable cars for around Cr4,000 are 1983 Honda City, Civic and CR-X.--SportWagon 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valencia not in GT4

[edit]

http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=89457 --SportWagon 20:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Tuning Companies

[edit]

I clarify the concept here, at greater length than is suitable for an encyclopedic article, to help editors decide on the virtue of recent edits related to this subject

(More specifically, with respect to the following revision).

GT4 was the first in the series to allow you to take your car to be tuned at somewhere other than the "dealer" you had purchased it from (or would have purchased it from, in the case of a prize). (Prior to GT4, ie. in GT1 and GT2, used car lots were themselves part of each dealership, selling the one make only).

All games (1-3) did feature cars tuned by independent tuning companies. Spoon in particular. (And HKS Drag cars for sure in GT2). I'm pretty sure there was at least one Spoon car (Civic Racer prize) in GT1, although it wasn't labeled as such. But you still couldn't take your car to an "independent tuning company" for parts and tuning in GT1 to GT3.

That said, the "independent tuning companies" in GT4 are pretty bogus. The prices and results are the same as the dealer tune-shop, with the exception of the occasional extra parts (usually suspension or turbo), which parts will be identical between all of independent tune shops which will provide parts for the particular car.

The parts selection really has not changed much since GT1. And, all this said, it's not clear the independent tune-shops in GT4 are all that important a feature.--SportWagon 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the outcomes of the mods are largely the same, for certain cars, there are 3rd party modifications that are different than the manufacturer modifications. Sometimes you can find a larger turbo option than available at the manufacturer's tuning shop, or suspension with suffer settings, etc. It's hard to notice, but there are options available in the tuner village that are not available elsewhere. Cozymonk (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non NPOV non-encyclopedic criticisms

[edit]

In the discussion section you have read how, in the past, it was pointed out not all game articles even leave themselves open for abuse by having a criticisms section. In any case...

*GT4 insists - like its ancestors - on treating the player as a dangerously retarded dimwit who has never seen an automobile before and doesn't understand the concept of driving. To start playing the game, the player once more has to go through a series of "licence tests". The first four of eight of these involve simply pressing the accelerator and brake buttons (no steering required) in order to drive up a short stretch of track in a straight line and then stop within a marked area. . . . All you're left with is a series of increasingly annoying trial-and-error guessing games, discover that this doesn't stop you in time, then restart the test and try again until you find the right point for that particular model.

I don't see how you can believe a phrase like "dangerously retarded dimwit" is possibly NPOV. And yet, apparently, one might conclude you are a dangerously retarded dimwith because you don't apparently find the tests easy to accomplish. In any case, the encyclopedic version of your rant is simply Some players do not like the requirement to pass license tests before proceeding with the rest of the game. Period. And you need to find citations for that. Yes, the stopping and starting tests are largely, if not totally, irrelevant to the racing aspect of the game. Again, find a citation. Further, the license test criticisms arguably belong only in the main Gran Turismo (series) article, since license tests are common to all the games.--SportWagon 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see a criticism of the license tests hasn't survived here, because starting and stopping are absolutely crucial to getting a good lap time. It's a racing simulation, so training on the controls, in lieu of the feel of a real car, is absolutely necessary. (Anecdotally, I've achieved gold in most of the tests on each of the main games, and it really did improve my racing style.) Knowing when to launch, and when to change gears; and where to brake and how hard, make a huge difference to whether you win or lose in tight races. Same with cornering.--Rfsmit (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Criticisms Section

[edit]

Exhumed here from the talk archive:

Regarding the existing Criticisms section, it's full of weasel words and there are no references supplied. If a website is used as a source, then it should be easy enough to include a link to the article. If it's a book or magazine, then it's customary to quote the specific issue and sometimes even the page number. See Bill Clinton's ref notes for examples. As it stands I intend to delete the entire section at the end of the month, and revert further unsources edits upon additions. If references are provided before then, I'll of course leave the appropriate statements. I believe such a section should exist if there are a number of verified criticisms, and I don't think either the inclusion or naming presents POV, (many higher-profile articles such as Microsoft#Criticism have them without problems), but that doesn't mean I support the addition of unsourced opinions. - Hayter 15:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And then, subsequently...

I went through the crits section today and reformatted the references that were already present. The way they were before may mean that some criticisms with provided references have been removed - if these go back in it should be close to the paragraph link that validates it i.e. don't cite a review once in a paragraph then go elsewhere, and return to the first review later on. Sometimes this is unavoidable but where possible, citations from the same review should be together.
From now on, I'll revert any factual addition (not grammar or spelling) to the section which isn't referenced. For those unsure how to do this,
*Find your source website.
*Write the criticism into the article.
*Follow the sentance with the referencing code, and adapt it to your link.
*Example:
Another criticism of the game is that there is no smell-o-vision support. <ref name= Hayterweb>[http://hayterweb.com/article/smell.htm Hayterweb article commenting on smell] URL accessed [[January 01]], [[2000]]</ref>
You should remove the bolding that I've included above - here, it's to demonstrate that this is the text that will appear at the bottom of the article as the reference link, like follows.
-Hayter 13:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There were several unverified rants before, and they were cleaned up, as indicated. One or two minor unsourced observations crept in, and perhaps we should have removed those more diligently, for, once again, things are getting out of control. This should not be a fan page, but it should not be an anti-fan page either. Some of the new criticisms seem to place emphasis on minor points in a manner which is disproportionate for the description of a game.--SportWagon 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a few new "criticisms" which have been added over the past month or so, which more or less follow this same theme - just fans bitching about their perceived shortcomings in the game. I've added cite-needed tags to them, but it's probable that they just need to be deleted. I'll poke around a bit to see if I can find any of them on a legitimate website, but I'm not going to hold my breath. — Wwagner 13:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second that.--SportWagon 18:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have backed the removal, except its now gone, but there is one I can't seen the need of including which has now been removed. That is the bit which refers that Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Porsche are not included in the game, even this was cited. I find that a particular supercar not included is a pathetic excuse to criticise the game other than they can't afford the cars themselves and I can't see this ever being worth bringing up. Willirennen 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But bring it up, they do. Many writeups on GT4 in the gaming press mention it, even if they don't complain about it; I read a whole lot of reviews when sourcing the criticisms section. Ferrari, Porsche, and Lamborghini are known worldwide as high performance automotive brands, and to not include them in a racing game with the breadth of different cars of the GT series seems a fairly glaring omission.
Furthermore, I question your characterization of this criticism; rampant fanboyism has no place in a neutral encyclopedia. The criticism was cited, along with a cited reason for the shortcoming. On the flip side of this, almost every preview writeup on Gran Turismo 5 that I've seen at least mentions the fact that Ferrari cars will be in the new game. If it's such a "pathetic" topic, then why is there so much talk about it? — Wwagner 23:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for removal of Car List

[edit]

Perhaps see deletion of GT4 car list page.

(Also the similar deletion of GT2 car list page)

In any case, the list was not formatted properly.--SportWagon 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists tend to border on fancruft anyway. They should be created very sparingly, as they tend not to augment Wikipedia's encyclopedic resources, and become useless effluvium of interest only to a select few readers. Eganio 00:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Top Gear segment

[edit]

We've got two bits which talk about the Top Gear segment in which Jeremy Clarkson raced Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca in GT4 and in real-life, and couldn't get the same times. It's spread out over two sections, and it weasels around with "disputed but not confirmed", "may have used", and "could have been flawed" (emphasis mine). Looking at the article which is actually about the episode in question, List of Top Gear episodes#Series 7, that article comes out and says categorically that Clarkson used an NSX-R on GT4 and a normal NSX in real life, and that they're not the same.

Now I haven't personally seen this Top Gear segment, and frankly I don't know the differences between the NSX and the NSX-R, but based on the sureness of the Top Gear article, is there any real reason we still need to soft-foot around this? I propose that we combine the segment from the Vehicles section (including the bit about Nürburgring), and the segment from the Criticisms section, clean them up a bit, and form a new section, perhaps "The Real Driving Simulator?", in which we can place the description of this test, kind of a "how real is it" section. It would segue naturally into Criticisms.

I've also seen a video of an interview with Kazunori Yamauchi in which he (through an interpreter) says that they spent a lot of time at the real-life tracks measuring and driving, to get them just right. He particularly cited that they did a lot of work on Laguna Seca, which has improved a lot over its time in the GT series. The video was on Youtube, though, which I wouldn't necessarily consider the most authoritative source. And of course I can't find the video again, either. — Wwagner 17:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the archive of this discussion (I don't want to link to it, to reduce the likelihood of the messiness of people editing it), I noted that many neutral observations can become criticisms merely by placing them in a criticisms section. I suggested an Observations section, and was somewhat shot down. If you read that section, you may want to consider why you are moving the information from the Criticisms section. Integrating into one place, with consequent abbreviation would be a good idea. One advantage of adding your section would be that counter-arguments would not be inappropriate there. Counter-arguments in a Criticisms section, in contrast, sound defensive. So, in conclusion, I think your proposed new section would allow for a balanced NPOV discussion of the particular sub-topic.--SportWagon 23:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and read the archive, and while I certainly see your point, most of the criticisms in the article right now are valid criticisms, and to call them otherwise seems disingenuous. It's also true that a Criticism section is a common feature in a LOT of other wiki articles, so that's a good precedent for having one here as well. As long as we can support our criticisms with lots of agreement from industry-standard sources, we're not doing anybody who reads the article a disservice. Video games, like movies and books and any other work of creativity, can be discussed on any aspect of their expression, and that includes criticism and praise, as well as neutral description.
As far as the criticisms go, lack of vehicle damage, lack of Ferrari/Lambo/Porsche, lack of the promised online play, and stupidity of the AI are in every single external review I've found (and I've found quite a number more than we use here in this article). Not many, not most, but ALL - everybody bitches about those things. And they are definitely valid points of criticism, for what purports to be the most realistic driving simulator out there. The dubious benefit of B-Spec mode, and the ability to take shortcuts to win are not nearly as universal complaints, but they're common enough. The folding roof one and the lack of detail in the pits one, well, none of the reviews I read mentioned them; we can probably remove them without damaging the article at all. The Vehicles section details the lack of raceability of some of the super-detailed models, which is basically at the root of that complaint.
So I'll move the realism stuff to its own section (also found a column on GT4 by Clarkson), and do some cleanup (and add more citations) to the Criticisms section. Since bytesector.com doesn't look like it's coming back anytime soon, I'll substitute those refs for something else while I'm about it. Oh, and I'll take the toomuchtrivia tag off - that section seems like it's under control now. — Wwagner 00:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I made these edits, and also moved the Prologue section up, to improve the logical flow of the article. — Wwagner 03:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was actually saying the inappropriateness of Observations was an argument against your reorganization, although the balanced description you have created is likely actually more encyclopedic. If you did paw through the history around that time, you'll see I actually extracted the paragraph starting The game includes, as prizes, many cars of historical interest, such as the 1886 Benz and Daimler "horseless" carriages, from Criticisms. That's an example of where what would be neutral information becomes negative just by being labeled a "criticism".--'SportWagon 06:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint there is probably that the polygon count/animation requirements for those cars are too high to have them on the track with anything else. Somebody's pushing a POV there, and while there's a valid complaint to be made, I think the way it is handled in the article currently, in a "just the facts" approach, is fine. And "racing" those cars would be an exercise in tedium anyway - the Daimler tops out at a blistering 12 mph. We ran it in a lap around Hong Kong once, and it took us like 20 minutes. — Wwagner 22:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trial Mountain Monkey

[edit]

Well, you inspired me to take some pictures of the Trial Mountain monkey, verifying that it is there in GT4. I'll get them webified soon. (I probably should set myself up a commons account). I saw and photographed the boat; it's actually closer to the other end of the straight before the final chicane, near the corner at the bottom of the hill. I have a context shot for it, too. I didn't see the Loch Ness Monster. Is that perhaps at Midfield? But I couldn't remember how to see over the fence to see the lake at Midfield.--SportWagon 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, pics. Those will definitely be nice for verifiability. Nessie is all the way to the left side of the lake beyond the fence there on Trial Mountain. Took me a bit of work to see it, but it's there. I haven't messed with photo mode much, but I'll see what I can do. — Wwagner 22:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are URLs only (not inlined). I hope those won't get axed by the photobot. Especially in a discussion page.


If they do get stomped, I guess you can retrieve them from history? The place I'd normally add these for reference is down right now. How kindly do "they" take to speculatively uploading to commons?--SportWagon 21:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps see-also http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=63864 --SportWagon 21:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that these photos mean anything in terms of verifiability. Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. Friday (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the {{trivia}} tag showed up, I've done some work on the Trivia section. The monkeys, well, they were just a little too trivial. I did find an article about the monkeys in GT3 on IGN. Sure, it's neat, but let's be realistic here. The only other google hits on the monkeys were either Wikipedia, or mirrors of Wikipedia. — Wwagner 18:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. At least you managed to keep Jay Leno.--SportWagon 14:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buick Special First Custom Car?

[edit]

en.allexperts.com suggests that the Buick Special is the first custom car in the series, but that claim is not well-defined. The GT2 Renault Espace F1 is a one-off show car. And, weren't all, or at least most, race-mods in GT1 and GT2 sort of "custom cars"?--SportWagon 20:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allexperts is a Wikipedia mirror, definitely not a citable source.
Whoever added that little fact probably intended "custom" to mean something like "available from the GT4 dealership with greatly different specs than it had out of the real-life factory, but not a race car." According to the wiki article on the Buick Special, it came with a 198 cubic inch 6-banger, which put out 135 hp/205 ft-lbs torque. The GT4 version is listed with a 7456cc V8 (455 inches), which generates 556 hp/585 ft-lbs torque. I'd say that qualifies as "custom". But if GT2 had the one-off custom Espace, then that fact in this article is, in fact, false, and should be removed. — Wwagner 22:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered about it being a mirror actually. The GT4 item has never actually looked exactly like that has it? Okay, looking beyond the presentation, and thinking back before the GT/Series reorganization, perhaps I recognize it (it is actually the main GT video game article, not the GT4 article). Unfortunately, their G/Gr index page seems impossibly large?--SportWagon 23:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Buick Special is a hard car to beat and it has a great speed to. Its a very cool old classic car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.17.170 (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honda Odyssey not only minivan in GT4

[edit]

As I played through the game, I encountered quite a few minivans in the game. Among them, the Renault Avantime, Toyota Caldina and probably a few more. Therefore I suggest changing the phrasing from "GT4 was the first of the series to feature a production minivan, the Honda Odyssey." to "GT4 was the first of the series to feature production minivans such as the Honda Odyssey." Thoughts? -- Gingiba 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it all depends on what you would consider a "minivan". The Wikipedia article on the Avantime states the vehicle as a "coupe automobile", and the article on the Caldina says it is a sports wagon. Even the Odyssey featured in the game (the JDM version) has 4 sedan-like doors, unlike the minivans offered in America. It might be a good idea to change it, but it depends how picky everyone else is about minivans. |_VonShroom 01:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)_|[reply]

The two examples I'd call station wagons rather than minivans. As far as the Odyssey goes, the wiki article calls it a "crossover SUV", which isn't quite a minivan. The list that seems most "minivan-ish" is the large MPVs in the minivan article - which does list the Odyssey. — Wwagner 03:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several MPVs in the game, like the Honda Step Van. Is there a solid definition for "minivan," anyway? How we define a minivan; is it just a van that is mini? Does it need sliding doors? Does it need to be a particular shape? What is a minivan? I'm being pedantic, but car types are not clearly defined. Mercedes calls the AMG GLE a coupe, even though it's a sport utility vehicle with four doors. The point I'm getting to is that the paragraph is probably not even necessary. Other games had MPVs before GT4 and the Odyssey is not the only car able to be considered a minivan. Cozymonk (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initial D References

[edit]

I was wondering if Initial D references should be in the trivia section. What I'm talking about is the Shuichi Shigeno Trueno. There is also an Integra and Civic (sold under Spoon in the game) that look similar to two featured in the manga/anime. Now I can't say for sure if the Integra and Civic are straight out of the series, but I know for sure the Shuichi Shigeno Trueno is a direct reference. 24.143.224.158 02:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prose Tag

[edit]

While I won't revert edits which are done to turn lists into prose, (true, that should go without saying) I cannot possibly give much help to such an effort (even apart from my other time constraints), because I think list organization is often a fundamentally good way of presenting information to readers. Well, I might do an occasional "move into a paragraph elsewhere" where it seems obvious to me (I've actually done that before). Perhaps I should try and find rationale behind the "no lists, only prose" guideline. So I'll search, but pointers to such would be welcome. Perhaps it has to do with translatability? I.e. perhaps non-prose lists are less acceptable in other languages than they are in modern English? A final note. The Criticism section, while formatted as a list, is actually a list of prose paragraphs. We could make it "not a list" by simply removing the formatting. Since the tagger didn't just do that, however, I suspect that wouldn't be sufficient.--SportWagon 16:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about that. I actually contributed. Maybe. I just removed the list formatting from Criticism and corrected the single non-prose point to be a sentence. Others can decide if that is sufficient for this section.--SportWagon 16:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found Wikipedia:Embedded list. It says there are places for lists. One could argue the criticisms section would be better as a list, but it would then require an introductory "parent" paragraph.--SportWagon 17:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism : porsche

[edit]

It is not true that porsche cars are not included in the game. RUF is, in fact, porsche. 

         The article said that RUFs were built on a porsche chassis. Look at the discriptions in GT3 and it explains that under the bodies of the two manufactureres are comepletely different parts. RUF is, in fact, NOT porsche.
No, RUF is RUF, based on Porsche, but not Porsche itself. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 21:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PC Steering Wheels

[edit]

I just edited the note about PC steering wheel compatibility with GT4. I own a Logitech Formula Force GP wheel, and it works fine for me with all PS2 racing games I've played, including GT4. --Mikehild 18:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the addition, but we don't really need to start building a hardware compatibility list in this article. The game officially supports the Driving Force Pro and GT Force wheels; a list of other devices the game doesn't officially support, but happen to work anyway, seems a list of barely discriminate information. To that end, I've removed the rest of that paragraph. — Wwagner 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of cars

[edit]

Somebody started a short list of car "classes", and has included a few examples of each "class", at the end of the Vehicles section. I won't deny that the wide selection of cars is an important part of the game, and there is some detail given to it in a couple other places in the article. However, I've seen lists like this expand to fill any available space, and this one seems poised to do just that. Please be aware that there have been 3 "list of cars in gt4" articles in the past which were deleted: the first, the second, and the third. Such lists don't get any more encyclopedic with time, I'm afraid.

On this same line of thought, the "list of cars you can't race" is getting a little out of hand. I tried a little copyediting, but it's still pretty ugly. Perhaps the real solution is the remove any discussion of specific models that are unraceable, and simply say that complex models are unraceable.

I'm going to remove the "list of car classes" section, and try to rework the unraceable cars discussion. Hopefully I can streamline it a bit. — Wwagner 23:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drifting

[edit]

Is it possible to drift in-game, or is the screenshot on the main page a computer controled movie? Kalga-han

Well, the game tries to be realistic. If you exceed the limits of the car, it will slide, yes. Friday (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can actually set a car up to drift really easily...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n07C0huWCbI&mode=related&search=
That's a video if someone drifting in GT4. 81.159.131.64 20:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AI isn't as bad as that

[edit]

I've seen lots of comments that the AI is really bad and will just blindly run into you to stay on its preprogrammed racing line. As I do real racing in RL, I thought I would point out something about this. What I have found is that the AI will respect you and change its line to avoid hitting your car when you are making a legitimate pass. But if you're somewhere you have no right to be, it will take you out into the dirt where you belong. And RL racers will do that, too. It seems to me that most human players expect the AI to drive off the road and surrender positions to avoid contact with the player as they swing their car around wildly on the track to make inappropriate passes. And it just doesn't. Therefore, it's "stupid". But real drivers will punt idiots off the track, too. Normally, drivers who don't know how to pass and be passed aren't allowed on the track in the first place. That's what racing licenses are about. Anyway, the AI isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than people give it credit for. 24.23.231.54 06:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't race in RL, but given a bit of thought, I came to the same conclusion; but this criticism is widespread. Maybe there's a quote somewhere from a notable racing driver we could use to support the rational view. In lieu of that, something from the manufacturer as a counter to criticism would have to do. (Same applies to damage to vehicles and furniture, and pit stops, but last time I checked, it wasn't called "The Real Crashing Simulator".)--Rfsmit (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apprentice episode indicates social profile, or something

[edit]

The following had been listed as "trivia", and so was removed:

  • Advertising for GT4 was a task for the two teams to complete on the reality show The Apprentice.

It does seem that is more than trivia. It indicates either a relatively high social profile of the GT series, or an interesting aspect of Sony's overall publicity campaign. In either case, it's sort of "GT4 in the non-gaming world". But, true, I looked for an existing part of the article into which that fact could be wedged, and failed to find a suitable place. P.S. The trivia-avoidance "Tracks" section needs fleshing out. I should help. Again, some of the facts currently there relate GT4 to the real world non-players know. Complete descriptions of all tracks would probably be fancruft, however.--SportWagon 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots?

[edit]

Someone seems to be requesting screenshots, but wasn't another screenshot recently removed, presumably for copyright reasons?--SportWagon 01:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That image was deleted in August due to CSD 6. Which suggests that writing a viable non-free use rationale is more important than the screenshot itself.--SportWagon 17:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the deal is that you have to write a rationale for every page where the fair-use image is used. But hey, that's no big problem; the previous images simply put the {{Non-free game screenshot}} licensing tag, but didn't write the rationale. I was going to try making a few screenshots, but I just haven't had the time yet. I was thinking maybe one of the 1889 cars somewhere, and another on one of the street tracks, and one with some traffic around a turn somewhere. Maybe a sweet drift on one of the dirt tracks would be nice too? — Wwagner 17:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, I just added a couple screenshots. These were the best two I came up with in the hour or so that I was working on it. I'd like to do one or two more, but don't have any more time right now. — Wwagner 01:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1080i

[edit]

Does this game really support 1080i? How is this even possible? I think it should be removed, until it has a source.

The game could have HD textures on it, but is the PS2 strong enough to display them? Wasen't it a PS3 only feature? --Elven6 (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true 1080i rendering, but the NA version does output 1080i. It uses a technique similar to the checkerboard stuff you see modern consoles do to reach 4k resolutions. It would render a distorted version of the game that was 1/3 as wide as 1920 pixels and distorted, then stretch it out to be the correct aspect ratio. That's why it looks pixelated at 1080 in a way that seems very unusual. Cozymonk (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Make links on SDTV, EDTV and HDTV, At top right of page. Please. 16:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Random Fact Of The Day From AddictedSoldier

[edit]

Did you know...


that there are four secret black race cars hidden in the Used Car Showroom halls? Two are in Used Car Showroom I, one is in Used Car Showroom II, and one is in Historical Car Showroom, I think.


Regards, The Unknown Soldier (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


To correct the Soldier, there are 2 cars in Used Car Showroom 1 and 2 in UCS2. In UCS1, there is a Toyota GT-ONE TS020 and a Nissan R390 GT1; in UCS2 there is a Mazda 787B and a Nissan R92CP. The cars in UCS1 cost a million more credits than the others, which cost over 1,000,000 on their own. Don't remember exactly how much they are, but they appear for a week on days 691-699(?) and then again 700 days later. Not many people probably know you can find them again, but I was lucky enough to get the R92CP the 2nd time around. It's the only one in the bunch that you can't buy (you can get it by winning the Fuji 1000km endurance). 71.63.183.139 (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan GT-R Proto error

[edit]

I assume what is meant by, "including the Nissan GT-R Proto, thus becoming the first video game ever to feature it. You can win it by achieving the International "A" license", is that you must claim gold in every license test in order to acquire it, not just attain the license (I have certainly never won a car myself by virtue of doing merely that). MRacer (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Music OK?

[edit]

Hey, I am just adding a segment on the background music used here. I will try to update it until it is complete. Mind, it is only for the US version that I know of. If you know anything about EU differences, feel free to add segment. 66.41.109.141 (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this section doesn't need to be deleted! Sorry, but some people want to know more about the soundtrack than just the theme song. If you can get away with a super-short trivia section that is not very relevant (no offense), there should be a list of music. If you must, re-format it into chart form. 71.63.183.139 (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, where does the Feeder song appear? It isn't in the regular soundtrack. Specify where it appears if possible. 2D Backfire Master (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

The three smaller GT4 articles need to be combined into this article. They seem to be nothing more than other versions of this game, with one of them having no release date. And looking at the size of the articles: GT4 = 26.1, GT4M = 5.29, GT4O = 5.95, 5.01 - about 41.35 combined, a common sight for a significant game. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disc read error?

[edit]

"This game has also been criticized for the high percentage of disc read errors. It is believed that many of the older PS2s have problems, as well as early slim models"

Does anyone have a explanation of this statement? The cite-note no. 34 does not work, thus qualify as a dead link. Junk Police (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronism?

[edit]

Anyone noticed that the Mitsubishi Eclipse GT in the game has a model year of 2006? Noting that the game was released in 2005?!? Explain, if you can, or note it in the article. I think it has enough relevance to be included. 2D Backfire Master (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really the place to ask, but I am guessing the car release maybe the early 2006 (GT4 itself released 2005) so it may be an small error. Junk Police (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with both of you. It's an irrelevance, in that: it's not a high profile car, and it probably does represent the 2006 model year, given that cars are released in the year before their model year, and spend several years prior to that in development. Finally, this is the forum for discussing points for inclusion in the article. That's why it's called a "discussion" page.--Rfsmit (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicles of "Historical Significance"

[edit]

In the "Vehicles" section there is a paragraph on vehicles of historical significance, which refers to the early vehicles such as the Daimler Motor Carriage and Ford T Model.

The issue is that there is a suggestion that one would add turbos and nitrous oxide to these vehicles to keep them competitive with newer machines.

I'm not sure if this is just trolling but it seems quite firmly in the boundaries of what is ridiculous. This would certainly not work, for obvious reasons, if it's even possible(?).

A further matter if the comparison of the Daimler Motor Carriage to a Castrol Tom's Supra (a seemingly arbitrary selection), with 1hp and 464hp respectively, which is just absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.83.1.241 (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

renaming section

[edit]

I changed the reeption sections name to sales because all it does is detail sale information and doesnt post any reviews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.62.246 (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E-Brake

[edit]

Recently I played GT4 again to get more photos and collect more cars, but then I notice that during gameplay, when you press the Emergency Brake(or E-brake) button just to drift your car, it's really, REALLY hard to control the car specially when you're in automatic transmission. We should include this problem in Criticism. Rouward (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No we shouldn't as it's trivial information, and applies to real world driving. E-braking is a technique, that if used properly, can actually improve lap times but it takes an adjustment to your driving style to master it.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sil80 2.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Sil80 2.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 13 April 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sil80 2.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

There are quite a few excerpts of negative points and complaints in reviews (criticism section), while no positive ones. I think this should be addressed.
Note: I'm talking about reviews, not the life vs gt4 tests in the 'as a simulator' section. Punkalyptic (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Gran Turismo 4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Gran Turismo 4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demo versions

[edit]

Should the demos be referenced here under 'Alternate versions'? Ie the BMW, Toyotas, press event versions etc

Seems odd that there is no mention of them on the page really — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdp2612 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think other versions like "bmw m1 virtual drive dealership" should be added beacuse they have "gran turismo 4" name in it.
But if it doesn't have "gran turismo 4" name in it, it shouldn't be added. Yunus Emre Ergun (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gran_Turismo_4&oldid=1207383026"