Gran Turismo 5 set to have 10,000 cars

Home  \  Off Topic  \  Gran Turismo 5 set to have 10,000 cars

The List ( n-turismo-5s-amazing-car-list)

posted by  GreekWarrior

wow, thats pretty much as crazy as crazy gets

i actually dont know what to type, like nothing

posted by  nighthawk

I want a PS3 just for that game now lol.

posted by  chris_knows

PS3= too many probs. I hope they get a grip on it cause I would buy one just for this game. :drool: (BTW I am only like 31% done with GT4... but whose counting anyways.)

posted by  Voda48

I foolishly started again with GT4, after completing the majority of it! (I was cross that I couldn't have more than one profile on one memory card so I started again....). I would buy a PS3 just for this game too....if there's that many cars on offer you can't really get much better!

posted by  Cliffy

The link isn't working.

I'll probably buy PS3 just for this about 7 years because I'm a cheap bastard. I have been playing barely any vidoegames in the last year, but I think being able to mod a BMW Isetta and racing it on the 'ring may bring me back to the dark side.

EDIT: I want one of those 50's amphibian cars (called amphicars I think?) and a track with water in the game as well.

posted by  giant016

That would be pretty sweet! I love the idea of that many cars, but that must of taken a lot of time to render. I heard for GT4 (w/ X number of cars) they took pictures of cars from many angles to get the rendering in the game (they said partly why there was no damage to cars, they did want to ruin them)

I didn't see, is Porsche and Ferrari going to be in the game?

posted by  Voda48

yeah they are.

he's some screen shots.

posted by  GreekWarrior

They are no where near rendering all of these cars. They said it takes like a couple of weeks to render one car. You'll probably have to buy (with real money) some of these cars to download them to your "garage" as they become available. Damage isn't done on these cars because they said in order to make it realistic, it would take more weeks per car to render the different damage types and drivng characteristics of the damaged car...and manufacturers don't want their cars damaged. Damage and having to manage the damaged vehicles would make this game perfect. How cool would it be to have the car you worked hours for totalled by some punk online.

So far no Porsche, Lamborghini, or Ferrari. Other dumbass games get these cars, what's the deal?

There is nothing wrong with the PS3 besides the price and current game support. Mechanically it works just find; no Xbox-like recalls yet.

posted by  What

There are Ferrari's in it.

posted by  GreekWarrior

looks like they say that wasn't the list. it was a fake...

posted by  V-Tec

Yep. Bull Shit.

posted by  Car hippie

I cant see the list, but from the history of GT, at least 9500 of those cars will be rubbish.

posted by  newyorker


I'm buying the PS3 with a 42" 1080P for two reasons: The first being that blue-ray has taken over the high definition world, and the second being games like this and the new metal gear solid.

posted by  Godlaus

I still prefer the XBOX 360...they both have their own problems, but the PS3 problems cost you 500-600 dollars instead of 300-400. Also, yes the visual quality of GT5 is nicer than Forza 2, but I dont agree that blu-ray is going to take over anything...its way too expensive.

posted by  newyorker

I do. It's the better technology and blockbuster has backed sony with blu-ray, since sony owns Columbia Pictures and TriStar Pictures I say blu-ray has a very good chance at being the next main stream format.

posted by  GreekWarrior

Im sure it will be, in 2010...right now, its just waaaaaaaaaay too expensive (at least in the states) for a regular family to go and buy a Blu-Ray compatable player id/184588/catOid/-16221/rpem/ccd/

Thats the cheapest one at one of our local stores right now. Its on sale at 487.99

posted by  newyorker

All new technology is expensive when it first comes out, look at dvd players for example, they use to cost the same if not more than blu-ray players do at the moment. Now look at the price you can grab a dvd player for today.

posted by  GreekWarrior

Thats why I said blu-ray will really kick off in a few years, not quite yet though

posted by  newyorker

What are you talking about? You keep on contradicting yourself and making moot points.

First of all, explain your backings behind your claim that PS3 problems cost more than XBOX problems. Professional findings if you can, please.

Secondly, Blu-ray has taken over the HD world. Look at all the studios backing them, and exclusively backing them as compared to HD-DVD. Also, blu-ray is just plainly better technology than HD-DVD. Here's what sony's CEO had to say:

"The three biggest box-office winners of this year were, in order: Sony, Disney, and Fox. Those are the three Blu-ray players. When you consider that those three successful studios will be delivering last year's successful box office in home video this year, then that's an enormous advantage. The fourth is Warner, and they release in both formats, so it doesn't hurt. If you are going to be buying discs, you are going to be buying an awful lot of Blu-ray discs going forward—if you want Pirates of the Caribbean or James Bond or Da Vinci Code or Spider-Man. Universal is the only one with HD DVD. I don't feel terribly intimidated."

We were never talking about whether or not Blu-ray will kick off, it's whether or not they own the HD market, which I believe they do. Blockbuster exclusively carries them. Target exclusively carries them. The only thing that HD-DVD reallyahs going for them is microsoft's backing, which is technically backing out, because they're going with a blu-ray add-on, and Wal-Mart's backing.

And just to add insult to injury, Toshiba's stock is at $9.10, while sony's is at $49.77.

There really is no more dispute unless something big happens soon. Blu-Ray has won.

posted by  Godlaus

I think he was referring to the cost of the consoles. The PS3 is more expensive at the moment, so really, the cost of the problems is more expensive. That's the only logical reason I could see, given that all PS3s should still be under warranty so the faults themselves actually cost nothing to the consumer!

posted by  Cliffy

I mean that 360 and PS3 have their own shares of hardware and software problems, but the ones on the PS3 cost more becuase of the price of the system. Of course Sony would say that, they own blu-ray. Its their job to promote their product and talk down the competition. Besides, I really dont care about the whole debate, I watch movies on my computer. Everyone is making a huge deal out of this whole high definition blu ray garbage, like its really really important to be able to see the hair sticking out of his ear that you couldnt see before?? americans will buy anything you tell them to buy, its plain sad

posted by  newyorker

Unless you have professional backing, this statement is bogus. You're relying on the assumption that the PS3 costs more to replace parts as well as the system, and that both systems have an exactly equal amount and specific same problems. Also, you're relying on the assumption that they have a multitude of problems in the first place. I haven't heard any such thing, so I need a reference, not your word.

Does that make what they say wrong?

Apparently, you haven't seen the quality of 1080p versus 400x600. Is it needed? Nope. But neither is your computer, your internet, your car, or anything else material in your life.

You'd be the guy arguing that DVDs are over-rated, and just a hype-up. Stick to your VHS, people!

1080p is important to me for many reasons:
1. I use my TV as my desktop monitor, and I like having an extremely high resolution, for a multitude of reasons.
2. I can watch action movies, like 300 in unrivaled clarity.
3. It's the wave of the future, and I have a habit of supporting technological advancement.

posted by  Godlaus

I don't get why they can't have damage...In Forza, for XBOX, the cars looked realistic and still had damage. You could turn it on or off, which affects how much you earn for winning a race. When you play online, the person who starts the game selects whether there is damage, and then I'm pretty sure the repairs are taken out of the money you win.

posted by  chris_knows

2. Saw 300 last night... wow I enjoyed it (even though everyone else thought it was too bloody)
3. The TV industry will be forcing the change by 2009, so why not take advantage of it now.

480 lines of resolution is horrible once you have seen something boosting 1080. You need to see it to believe it.

posted by  Voda48

1. I said they have their own share of problems, and I know this from me owning a 360 and my friends owning PS3s...this isnt a matter of me proving anything, but them both being problematic consoles.
2. No, but does it make it right??
3. I have DVDs, but I first watch everything on the PC, cause thats where it gets burned from, and I really dont see a difference. Progressive scan DVD is apparently something other than what the salesman told us it was.

I love new technology, but usually 2 or 3 years after its first released so the price goes down and all of the potential bugs are fixed.

posted by  newyorker

I'll wait for ChrisV to handle this one. He HATES this point of view.


What? Yuo don't see a difference between DVDs and watching movies on your computer? Ok. Probably because they're the same resolution. How are you getting movies on your computer?

Fine, but you have to realize to THINK before you type. I'm arguing with your original statement of " I dont agree that blu-ray is going to take over anything...its way too expensive." But, you keep on bringing up moot points ovre and over again. Just admit that you were wrong, and let's move on.

posted by  Godlaus

Let him

No it doesnt, dont be biased


What I meant is that its not takin over anything at the moment.

posted by  newyorker

Yes, it, does. Prove to me that it's wrong. Do you seriously think that what Sony's CEO said is a lie? It's facts that support his product. That doesn't make them wrong. In fact, that makes them correct.

And if you can't tell the difference between 200x130 and 1080p, then you need to get lasik.

Then think before you type. We're not all in your head. When you say: "I dont agree that blu-ray is going to take over anything". That's a universal statement, meaning that you don't agree than blu-ray is going to EVER take ovre anything. You didn't add the soon part to the end.

You see the importance of being clear in communication?

posted by  Godlaus

You obviously dont know torrents very well. I download full movies, in full quality, with all special features and menus, etc. I agree about the last part you said, about clear communication and that was an error on my part, but I still disagree with the first part about the Sony CEO. I am not going to research it, but usually what happens is that companies try to promote their own stuff and talk everyone else down..just watch car comercials on tv..

posted by  newyorker

Enjoy your illegal downloading. And your computer screen probably can't project 1080p, so I don't expect you to know the difference.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY'RE WRONG. When Toyota claims that their truck has 365 horsepower, more than ford or chevrolet, does that make their claim wrong? NO. You're thinking about taking things out of context. And guess what? Sony's CEO gave you the context. His statements are true.

I gave you a source to prove that I'm correct, now it's your turn to prove it wrong, or shut up.

posted by  Godlaus

Visually I can't yet see the difference between blu-ray and normal DVDs, and unless a 1080p tv and 400x600 tv are side by side, I won't know the difference there either.

I like blu-ray because of its information storage capabilities.

posted by  What

That's the actual advantage of blu-rays. If blu-rays look any better, it's due to their larger storage capacities, hence, allowing for the storage of even higher quality. This should actually be the difference point between both technologies. Funny how the 1 member on this forum that everyone complains about is usually the first one to bring up the most valid point of all :wink2:. Nice to see that everyone still gets along so well.

I've actually had the chance to see tv's side by side in comparison. I can notice the difference, but it's not something I would have an orgasm over. I don't know about you Godlaus, but I don't want to see every single detail that you are able to see on such a high quality tv screen from actors. Sometimes, I'm better off not noticing their imperfections.

Anyhow, look it up. Blu-rays (against single layer hd-dvd's) are better JUST because of higher storage capacity. The better tha quality, the more storage space is required.

Thanks to "What" for once again being the smart one :thumbs:

posted by  Inygknok

Your Message