2010 Camaro SS in Gran Turismo 5!!!!

[truth411]

I have been following this game for years, Gran turismo 5 is about to blow all raceing game out of the water!! espescialy Forza. Sony has thrown everything and the kitchen sink at this game, BUT FAIR WARNING GUYS, if you set up the physics to simulation, it is so good, that you will need a racing wheel to take full advantage of it (This is the ultimate driving simulator remeber). Gran turismo 5 physics are not possible on any other console, they are pushing the SPUs in the cell proccesor HARD. Even some High-end PCs would struggle. GT5 is not finished yet, but will be fully unvield I think at Gamescon in Europe.

Still to be announced or shown:
TRACK EDITOR!!!! (create your own racetracks)
Dynamic weather!!
Alot more.

[MaxLegroom]

If that car list isn't true, it should be. It showed an attempt at a respect for automotive history from around the world, by even including cars from the Soviet Union, China, and any number of countries not really known for building cars.

I admit that I found myself drooling at the idea of slinging some of these cars around the various circuits. SS427 vs. Galaxie on the Nurburgring, anyone? OK, how about a 911S vs. Yenko Stinger at Laguna Seca?

Or maybe I just want to cruise in the '56 Packard Caribbean. Damn, what a parade float of a car. I remember first reading about the '55 Caribbean in a In Retrospect article in Motor Trend when I was 9. I utterly fell in love with that thing.

If they've resurrected some of the photo options, I have a good idea for a picture that should be highly complimentary. Phantom Corsair and Maybach Exelero...

If I said I can't wait to drive the '10 Camaro in this game, I'd be lying. If I couldn't wait, I'd have given in and bought the XBox 360 and Forza Motorsport 3 a long time ago. I've tried it already, and it isn't bad. This is, however, what I've been waiting for all too long. If that is the car list, it's going to be worth it.

[5thGenOwner]

Originally Posted by Doc

To me true conversation is when people commune with one another; the medium is not critical. You can communicate with someone with a simple look; no words are needed. A letter can communicate volumes; a good conversation doesn't always require immediate response. Words and phrases carefully chosen can communicate very well, and that's an art that's being lost sadly. "Think before you speak" is being replaced by "feel and then open fire".

Debate today has unfortunately deteriorated into verbal combat where "winning" is "defeating" your "opponent". To me that isn't really conversation; just warfare. To me a true conversation is where two or more engage one another on a topic in a way that enhances, uplifts and enlightens everyone involved. Accusing, name calling, declaring someone a "fanboy", slamming, speaking with contempt and derision; all those are warfare techniques and tactics and produce nothing of any real value whatsoever. It's become the common way of talking unfortunately due to the horrifically bad examples constantly pumped into people's lives via the media. Typically that just produces more hostility and hard feelings; carried to an extreme it can actually lead to physical violence.

As a result, it's become almost impossible to "talk" to anyone about practically anything because they immediately start the combat-speak style with all the behaviors they've seen on TV and movies and such.

True conversation comes from within; it will find a way to commune no matter what medium is available.

I suppose I agree with most all you say. But you only further explained what I was talking about. The difference between internet (anonymous) chat is vs. face-to-face. Both can, and will, break down into juvenile antics. As I may not completely agree with the "seen on TV and movies" so much. I believe people can tell the difference between Reality and Fiction. But the semi-anonymity people gain while on the internet makes it that much more easy to 'grow a pair'.

Again, I met my better half on a music message board, outta nowhere. But I only credit the message board for the introduction to her... the rest was, well... meant to be!

[jspeak32]

Originally Posted by brantley847

Anybody who tells you not to get a ps3 is being a lil fanboy...

I have owned both...so I am not bias, I enjoyed both....however, I don't agree with paying for xbox live just so I can have an organized friends list. All I need is a game, internet, and a way to play my friends...PS3 provides that for free. If I had it my way I would own both.... I can't pass up a free blu ray player, free internet gaming, and games like MLB show, GT5, Uncharted and so forth..

I still play both, and both have cons

I own a 360, PS3, and a Wii. I have to say the 360 gets WAY more play time than the others.
If you haven't sat down with a 360 and actually dug into the live service and see how much easier it makes to organize friends together to play games, you really should.
There were times when I became so frustrated with the PS3 online experience that I probably would have shoved a $5 bill into the front of the system if it would make the online play better. I know it works, and its free, but my free time is limited and I'd rather pay a small fee in order to make the most of my time. I guess its whatever a person has more of depends on which system they like. Time, or money.

With that being said, I still enjoy the PS3 and will say it has some great SINGLE player games. It was worth the console just for God of War 3. I'm looking forward to GT5, and there are many single player games out or coming out that I have my eye on. But for people who solely enjoy multi-player, the 360 offers the best experience for right now.

Oh, and the whole PS3 online service is free argument, well that's changing soon.

http://www.giantbomb.com/news/playst...unveiled/2172/

You don't have to pay this to play games, but I would imagine this is the first step for Sony before they force you to pay to play, just like 360. And if it makes the online service better and more enjoyable, I'm for it.

[Wolverine]

Finally!

[King Sun]

Originally Posted by jspeak32

I own a 360, PS3, and a Wii. I have to say the 360 gets WAY more play time than the others.
If you haven't sat down with a 360 and actually dug into the live service and see how much easier it makes to organize friends together to play games, you really should.
There were times when I became so frustrated with the PS3 online experience that I probably would have shoved a $5 bill into the front of the system if it would make the online play better. I know it works, and its free, but my free time is limited and I'd rather pay a small fee in order to make the most of my time. I guess its whatever a person has more of depends on which system they like. Time, or money.

With that being said, I still enjoy the PS3 and will say it has some great SINGLE player games. It was worth the console just for God of War 3. I'm looking forward to GT5, and there are many single player games out or coming out that I have my eye on. But for people who solely enjoy multi-player, the 360 offers the best experience for right now.

Oh, and the whole PS3 online service is free argument, well that's changing soon.

http://www.giantbomb.com/news/playst...unveiled/2172/

You don't have to pay this to play games, but I would imagine this is the first step for Sony before they force you to pay to play, just like 360. And if it makes the online service better and more enjoyable, I'm for it.

this is the some of the worst fanboy dribble i seen on this forum. anyway gt5 is going to blow off the doors and once i saw that camaro in the opening i knew you guys would make a thread about it :}

[jspeak32]

Originally Posted by King Sun

this is the some of the worst fanboy dribble i seen on this forum. anyway gt5 is going to blow off the doors and once i saw that camaro in the opening i knew you guys would make a thread about it :}

How...is this...fanboy? I used logic and reason. Fanboys blindly cheer at something...I own all three consoles...I praised the PS3 for being great single player...

If anything, you picking and choosing my statements out of context was fanboy in itself.
I don't know why you bolded that last statement of mine talking about Sony starting to charge for their online service. It's true! You think my theory that Sony will eventually charge for playing is fanboy? Sony would be stupid not too! It would make perfect sense for them to do it. I wouldn't blame them. They are already starting to charge next month for a service, I'm just saying that it won't be much longer (once this service gains momentum and they get more subscribers), that this service they are charging for will eventually encompass playing online.

And yes, I gave my reasons for the 360 being my favorite system, that does not make me a fanboy.
How about this idea for you. Next generation, if the new PS4 and the new Xbox-whatever-its-called were flip-flopped, as in, the PS4 offered the best multiplayer/gaming experience and the new Xbox fell behind, I would without blinking make the PS4 my preferred system to game on.
Fanboys don't do that sort of thing. Fanboys take their preferred company to the grave, no matter how poorly its doing. I jump ship. I don't understand why anyone would want to hold allegience to these companies worth millions.

[TheSSpimp]

This game has a release date already. it comes out this November. It has the best game models ever.

[iPODFAN11]

Originally Posted by jspeak32

I own a 360, PS3, and a Wii. I have to say the 360 gets WAY more play time than the others.
If you haven't sat down with a 360 and actually dug into the live service and see how much easier it makes to organize friends together to play games, you really should.
There were times when I became so frustrated with the PS3 online experience that I probably would have shoved a $5 bill into the front of the system if it would make the online play better. I know it works, and its free, but my free time is limited and I'd rather pay a small fee in order to make the most of my time. I guess its whatever a person has more of depends on which system they like. Time, or money.

With that being said, I still enjoy the PS3 and will say it has some great SINGLE player games. It was worth the console just for God of War 3. I'm looking forward to GT5, and there are many single player games out or coming out that I have my eye on. But for people who solely enjoy multi-player, the 360 offers the best experience for right now.

Oh, and the whole PS3 online service is free argument, well that's changing soon.

http://www.giantbomb.com/news/playst...unveiled/2172/

You don't have to pay this to play games, but I would imagine this is the first step for Sony before they force you to pay to play, just like 360. And if it makes the online service better and more enjoyable, I'm for it.

Carefull now, the PSN is still and will always be free, unless you wish to pay $50 a year for the plus version, which gets you free content every month, ending up with hundreds of dollars of swagger such as PSN games, wallpapers, etc. Plus is just an option.

[jspeak32]

Originally Posted by iPODFAN11

Carefull now, the PSN is still and will always be free, unless you wish to pay $50 a year for the plus version, which gets you free content every month, ending up with hundreds of dollars of swagger such as PSN games, wallpapers, etc. Plus is just an option.

I don't agree with the bolded comment. Everything comes to an end sooner or later. It may be next year, or the launch of the Playstation 4, but someday, Sony will want to make more money off their online service. They'll add something to justify it, like dedicated servers for their games...something to warrant the fee in the minds of gamers, and before you know it...we'll be paying to play on a Sony device just like the 360.
I'm not against it, but I don't believe it will be free forever. The plus is proof that they are slowly moving that direction.
Microsoft has proven a company can make money off pay-to-play, for Sony its no longer untested grounds. They just have to wait for the right time and then bam, it'll happen.

Originally Posted by iPODFAN11

...unless you wish to pay $50 a year for the plus version, which gets you free content every month, ending up with hundreds of dollars of swagger such as PSN games, wallpapers, etc...

That doesn't make sense. If you're paying $50/year, then the monthly content isn't free

[SZOTSTA24]

I found an interior gameplay video of the camaro!!! and another HD picture. Both the video and the picture show that Rally Stripes will be available on the Camaro!

http://www.gtplanet.net/rome-in-gt5-...ismo-5-rome-1/

[Doc]

Originally Posted by SZOTSTA24

I found an interior gameplay video of the camaro!!! and another HD picture. Both the video and the picture show that Rally Stripes will be available on the Camaro!

http://www.gtplanet.net/rome-in-gt5-...ismo-5-rome-1/

The amount of detail and effort they put into the environment and buildings is just mind-boggling. If I didn't already have a PS3 I'd sure buy one just for this game. I have a feeling I'm going to be playing this a LOT.

It would be just awesome if they could add LeMans 1970 with all the cars that were running then. I would absolutely love to drive a Porsche 917 in a game with this kind of detail and lighting.

[King Sun]

Originally Posted by jspeak32

I don't agree with the bolded comment. Everything comes to an end sooner or later. It may be next year, or the launch of the Playstation 4, but someday, Sony will want to make more money off their online service. They'll add something to justify it, like dedicated servers for their games...something to warrant the fee in the minds of gamers, and before you know it...we'll be paying to play on a Sony device just like the 360.
I'm not against it, but I don't believe it will be free forever. The plus is proof that they are slowly moving that direction.
Microsoft has proven a company can make money off pay-to-play, for Sony its no longer untested grounds. They just have to wait for the right time and then bam, it'll happen.



That doesn't make sense. If you're paying $50/year, then the monthly content isn't free

well pc games you can play online for free and thats been around for ages. yeah you have services like steam but its still free to play online. I think the one of the biggest things about getting a ps3 is the online is free and it probably will remain that way and with the psn plus service thats optional it would give the gamers a choice of paying for content instead of online

[jspeak32]

Originally Posted by King Sun

well pc games you can play online for free and thats been around for ages. yeah you have services like steam but its still free to play online. I think the one of the biggest things about getting a ps3 is the online is free and it probably will remain that way and with the psn plus service thats optional it would give the gamers a choice of paying for content instead of online

Water used to be 100% free, and it still is, but people are now choosing to buy bottled water when they don't have to. They might do it because it tastes better, or perhaps just the convenience of having something already cold, and in a container. Bottled water has become very profitable.

It's proven people will pay for convenience. If something is made easier, enough people will choose to pay for it. I think that's true for Xbox Live. I think Sony knows this. It would be foolish for a company to see a competitor making money off something, and to not offer a similar product.

Look at what Microsoft and Sony are doing right now with all this motion control stuff coming out. They saw the success Nintendo has with the Wii, and they want a piece of that pie.
GM saw the success of the Mustang way back when...another example.

Sadly for me, when Sony finally does start forcing people to pay to play online, I'm sure you will have long forgotten our conversation on here...therefore I suppose there's no reason for me to debate this anyway...