Talk:Gran Turismo 4/Archive 1 - Nov 27, 2006


 * Later, if we create multiple archives, we may wish to use


 * See How to archive a talk page



List of cars
Should the list of cars included here be given a separate article? It totally dominates this one and I think it could stand up on its own.

criticisms
The Honda CRX criticism is hilarious. Wow a CRX can run in real life (10s) with a Dodge Viper when it is highly tuned. Hahaha. WHO CARES?? They are not even comparable beyond that; why would you even want to compare the two? CJ DUB 15:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The criticism are rather punitively worded as though written by someone with a Forza chip on their shoulder. While true that there is no damage rendering, by what/whos standard does this make it 'inferior?'

if the article stays, someone without a major bias should edit this more.


 * I apologize.

There is too much bias in this section and it is written rather poorly. Writing in a neutral third-person perspective would likely be more appropriate.

I've specifically highlighted the claims needing to be verified and removed those paragraphs where the wording was too bad to bother trying to save, though the full section as I edited it can be found here. All the lines which start, "One criticism of the game..." or in a similar manner need sources. Who says that's a major/minor criticism? Reviews highlighting such points need to be linked to, otherwise even if they're correct, there's no way to tell if it's simply one person who feels that way about the particular point being raised. If these claims cannot be verified, the section needs to go completely. And bear in mind that even when countering these criticisms (if you choose to do so), additions such as "mercifully this is better" are still NPOV; they're just your POV. Such words can't be used in the section. It's there to inform the reader of the facts, not tell them whether the facts are good or bad. - Hayter 18:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * History indicates someone removed a but replaced the related criticism with an entirely new one.  The statement in question, "Another minor criticism is of the ability to transfer only a limited amount of funds from the previous game Gran Turismo 3.", is true but it's questionable whether the feature should be considered bad, or even worth mentioning.  The ability to get a bit of a head start using your GT3 save seems reasonable, but it's not clear you should be able to get more than the amount of cash you can, which can get you much more than a mere "starter" car.
 * --SportWagon 20:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding . ..


 * One minor criticism is, unlike Forza, that the aftermarket parts add no value to your car.


 * That is not a criticism. It is a ridiculous nit-pick.  This is a game.  By "value" they mean "money you get when selling" and/or "cost to transfer to another game".  Recouping cost by selling cars is only a minor facet of the game.  For game purposes, sale of a car should carry a reasonable penalty (otherwise you can merely effectively "trade" the car you are using).  A difference between GT4 and previous versions is you cannot purchase a fully-tuned car from another game; you lose all its added parts and settings.  Each of the various GT games had various problems when it came to the "memory-card trade" feature which allowed cars to be purchased from other saved games.  Perhaps the worst was GT3 in which you could actually pay only the base price for a car, but obtain all its add-ons.  This allow you to use multiple memory cards to avoid paying for the add-ons.  That seems obviously like "cheating".  The loss in GT4 of the ability to purchase a complete tuned car prevents people from "trading" their fully-tuned cars to each other, or among their own games.  Perhaps that would be a valid criticism to list.  This article does not seem to have a consistent level of detail of explanation, however, so I'm disinclined to stick my fingers into the article itself.
 * --SportWagon 20:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the entire "criticisms" section should be spread throughout the article, so the facts can be presented with less bias. For example, some people don't like the fact that some of the prize cars awarded cannot compete in races, and, in some cases are pure museum pieces.  (Works of digital art in most cases, IMHO)  That is what the game makers decided to award as prizes.  I was astounded when I received my first prize-car in GT1.  In real-life racing drivers don't usually get prize cars.  So the fact that the prizes in GT4 are not all useable cars is not undeniably a bad thing.


 * Lack of damage modeling in the fourth generation of "The Real Driving Simulator" would seem to be indisputably a valid criticism, however.
 * --SportWagon 20:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree; such a section is warranted for a game as famous as GT4 because there will always be criticisms even if the game is almost universally popular. That being said, such a section should not become a base for nitpicks, and if it is revealed that the only major criticism is the lack of damage (something which I feel certainly does neccesitate mention), then the section should specifically be about that, rather than more general 'complaints.' When I added the various fact tags, I planned to leave them for a time and if no sources were provided, then delete the section. The citation tags aren't a substitute for sources and after so long it becomes a joke to leave unsourced comments as they are. - Hayter 20:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, so a section might be appropriate, but you agree that nitpicks are not appropriate. I'm really a bit too biased towards GT to edit the section.  I did feel moving some of the criticisms to a relevant spot might reduce their negativity, and even inappropriate POV (just labelling as a criticism can turn a factual observation into a POV).  Also, all-in-all I feel this whole article should be removed in favour of the section in the main Gran Turismo (video game) article, and so feel reluctant to work on it.  So...  Perhaps the most productive thing I could do would be to dig up a citation indicating that lack of damage modelling is considered a bad thing. --SportWagon 23:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think the entire criticisms section invites unencylopedic editing. Sure, I sit around hardly making any contributions as I fret over each one, but someone else feels free to come along with


 *  Also, you are able to sell all of your cars, so you may end up with very little money and no car, and may have to resort to the cheapest car available at times. Every other game will not let you go without a car.

So, the game allows you the freedom to be stupid enough to put yourself in a bad situation, and that must be a bad thing ("criticism")? "Every other" is an impossible claim to verify. And, as I say, one can't assert that the feature is undeniably a bad thing. I claim a good game can allow you to do stupid things. The observation (except for the "Every other game" assertion) is fair and correct, but only as an observation. To label it as a (negative) criticism is purely a value-judgement. (I.e. one could just as sensibly say, "No other driving game mimicks the reality of real-life personal economics to the degree of allowing you to go bankrupt.") All-in-all, I think the quality of the article would remain higher if there was no explicit "criticisms" section, so that occasional criticisms would be made elsewhere where appropriate. (And in most cases, observations should be made without stating a value-judgement; the reader can decide what is good and bad, based on the facts).--SportWagon 19:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's an example of an unsourced edit made with an obvious POV, so it should be removed. It doesn't make the section a bad thing for the article. What if I find a review on gamespot that says "but annoyingly, the game will allow you to sell all your cars, which can result in you being unable to race"; where in the article would that go? I say go ahead like this. I added the fact tags in early April. Wait till the end of May, and then delete any unverified claims. If that results in the section containing nothing, then get rid of it, but if there are referenced criticisms still there, it can stay. After that, you patrol as you're supposed to do on Wikipedia (to the letter of the law, anyway) by reverting any unsourced additionss. - Hayter 18:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the particular observation, while it was factual for the first three games, is actually incorrect for GT4. But, even as a fan, I had forgotten.  In GT4 there are "driving missions", for which you do not need to own a car, but which do pay money.  If you lose almost all your money, you could always repeat a mission or two a few times until you have a reasonable amount.  (One easy one pays Cr7,500; ten times that gets a reasonable car).  FWIW. But overall I guess I'll stop sweating all this.  But I do think a neutral "observations" section might be useful.  --SportWagon 16:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms does not stop me
Well, to be honest, I have 170 cars and I still refuse to sell it. Why? Because they are my keys to get in first place faster, and my cars needs no upgrades (I can only upgrade it only if it is necessary). I can handle exotic vehicles, I only use manual transmission, I obtained all the licenses without cheat codes and guess what. I am the real professional driver. Anything Else 10:45 AM 16 May 2006

Citations for the Criticisms
Would the fact that they are commonly discussed on GT Planet (www.gtplanet.net) be a legitimate citation?


 * Nope. From Reliable sources, posts from forums aren't allowed as sources.  A better choice would be a professional review from Gamespot, IGn, etc. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How about Globe&Mail, via Google Cache? 
 * No damage
 * No online play (which was promised until shortly before release)

If my link doesn't work, try google "damage gran turismo". Perhaps in the U.S. "globe mail damage gran turismo". And select the the cached version. --SportWagon 23:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks ok to me. If another edit has a problem with the source, they can bring it up, but feel free to add it. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how to reference the paper newspaper, and such a reference would be difficult for a reader to track down. But the Google cache will expire fairly soon.--SportWagon 23:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I tracked down the "original" article at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/


 * I have added it to References, and cited it. Someone else may want to fix up details.  I'll likely review Citing_sources when I have another bunch of time. --SportWagon 19:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Even then, there's lots of weasel words in the criticisms without anything but self referential cites (if that)... I say it should be removed entirely since most of it STILL reads like someone with a Forza chip in their shoulder. I mean, the Forza article doesn't have a criticism section... does that mean its beyond criticism?--CHM 23:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (As I keep suggesting). Things which are purely factual could be in an "observations" section.  I.e. "Buying parts does not increase resale value of your car, although in Forza it does."  classified as a "criticism" is not NPOV.  But as an observation it can be verified by someone who actually has access to both games.  Whether it's a good or a bad thing is debateable, and, as an "observation" left up to the reader.--SportWagon 18:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about this, but damage is not too good. And besides that, it can affect the car, risking losing your ride and that is not true. No damage is still my favorites. Even if there is no online play, LAN is still taking over as an online play. Stick to no damage and by all means, Gran Turismo 4 is still unbeatable. Anything Else 10:14 AM 17 May 2006


 * Anything Else I am impressed you came back again. While I am not an experienced Wikipedian, I do know your comments are not really relevant to the development of this article.  Sure, you are free to like something other people criticize.  Yes, people here are trying to find citations for the criticisms and will likely remove most of them.  A newspaper citation has been found saying that lack of damage and online play (after it had been promised) are both bad things.  A technical discussion of the actual capabilities of LAN play might moderate that, true.  In any case, as others indicate, your personal opinions are not relevant to an "encyclopedic" article.  As has been said, if the citations are not found for criticisms, they will be removed.  And even if some criticism aren't removed, you are free to disagree with and/or ignore them.  P.S. While perhaps severe damage might detract from enjoyment, it seems wrong that currently you  can ride walls and bounce off other cars.--SportWagon 18:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but you may call me David. That is my user. I know why the damage affects the car, like the one I played in the Acclaim version of Juiced. It is a bad game, and the damage is a lot worse, I can't let this happen to the fifth series of Gran Turismo. Like the ones that they are called "Pink Slips", it is a very risky race, and they are faster, you know, and it can take a lot of risk just to lose your ride, or mine. The damage from Burnout Revenge of the PS2 version is highly detailed and still the best. Anything Else 10:36 AM 17 May 2006

Here's a citation documenting the fact Sony announced the removal of online play. http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=4579 If LAN play can be made to substitute for it (but without Sony infrastructure support), this seems to be strange marketing. Unless the intention is to sell "online version" later, which is rumoured. I don't have time to massage this into a reference yet, especially since I don't think it's really a "publication".--SportWagon 20:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I cited this today, treating it as if it is a reliable publication.--SportWagon 19:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I know everyone wants damage, but I don't want to. I still believe that with damage, it can increase the cost of your car in order to repair, it can affect the car if it takes damage, also, it is possible that losing your ride in a race could get in a worst situation. I should'nt risk on putting on the damage. Besides, SportsWagon, I don't even care about damage, and to tell you something, I own 170 cars, I got slow cars, but I also got the fastest cars. I enjoy no damage, well, except for the tire wear. Anything Else


 * As I had put in the section, but was removed, perhaps because it's not NPOV, not having damage modeling does not seem to meet the claim that this is The Real Driving Simulator. In fact, IMO, the series success has been more because they are The Real Fun Driving and Easy Racing Game, but they've never billed themself as that (they've added some real challenges in GT4, too).  By-the-way I have 424 cars in the game (I assume you mean 170 cars in the game--can't see why someone with 170 cars IRL would bother with this game.  Well, maybe I could, but...).--SportWagon 17:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is everyone complaining about lacking damage? I know why. It can affect the car's handlings and that I knew what it is about to happen. I do own 172 cars because I have an Audi A3 and I got an Audi Pikes Peak quattro, but I still can't manage to get past Gran Turismo championship. This is probably due to high tire wear problems, SportWagon. Best Gamer 18 July 2006
 * Continuing that discussion here would be inappropriate. Perhaps see Fan Sites under Gran Turismo (video game). The best is probably http://www.gtplanet.net/ .  I haven't tallied up what I've A-spec'd and what I B-spec'd, but I quite quickly decided B-spec was my friend.  I have a game log here http://www.geocities.com/gt2toxs/gt/logs/gt4-game1.txt --SportWagon 16:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We might glean a few citations from the following: http://www.bytesector.com/data/bs-article.asp?ID=425

But that review doesn't really explicitly criticize, but merely indicates the author was disappointed by one or two realities of the game. (Most specifically dealing with cars you can't race, here...)--SportWagon 19:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, I worked in a couple of citations of that article. diffs --SportWagon 16:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wings
"Also, unlike Forza, the aftermarket wings are just for show, and do absolutely nothing to enhance your car's performance."

That's not true. With most cars, the aftermarket wings allow you to adjust front and back downforce. That can enhance the car's performance.


 * In the game?

If previous Turismo games are any guide then yes. The player is given an advanced series of options regarding tuning the car, one of which is altering the downforce, allowing for better handling and/or cornering. The above quoted extract is likely to be untrue, unless this game deviates from all its predecessors. - Hayter 18:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this part of the project, while the overall Gran Turismo page isn't?
Why is Gran Turismo 4 a part of WikiProject Computer and video games, while Gran Turismo %28video game%29 is not?

Wouldn't it make more sense to make Gran Turismo %28video game%29 part of the project?

--SportWagon 22:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * They should both be part of the project as they're both games, but it's a manual task to add the template to the talk pages of articles, and GT's just been overlooked till now. There are probably others as well, given the thousands of games that have been made. - Hayter 09:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

An 'Observations' section
Regarding the suggestion of adding this in favour of the current Criticisms section; the addition of such a section is contrary to the basis of Wikipedia. The entire article is an observation. Defining such a specific section would, I feel, be akin to saying, "this is the bit where your opinion goes." "This is great" and "This sucks" are both observations but don't really belong together. The simple fact is that there are published criticisms of the game, and it would be disingenuous not to include them. If there is more than one criticism, the most logical section title would be "Criticisms". Balance has nothing to do with it. When you read the Hitler article, do you complain that his softer side isn't really demonstrated? An encyclopaedia is about all the facts, not an even balance between ones that support Y and others that support X. If there is an imbalance, it's generally a good reading of the subject i.e. Hitler wasn't very nice and (I believe) there are a deal more positive reviews of GT4 than there are negative. If you remove a Criticisms section and bring in an Observations one, it's an open invitation for fans of the game to attempt to counter every criticism posted. This quickly becomes ridiculous as Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems proves.

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 have them without problems), but that doesn't mean I support the addition of unsourced opinions. - Hayter 15:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, so some statements could be moved out of the criticisms section and the value-judgements removed. (In some cases, as I say, merely placing it in the criticisms section implies the value-judgement).  Using my previous example, someone with access to both games, or at least reliable information about both games, can verify that paying for parts or modifications to your car in Gran Turismo 4 does not increase its resale value, while in Forza it does.  I could create arguments to suggest either is preferable (but wouldn't in the article) so such a statement is neither criticism nor praise; IMHO those are just parameters of the game which the player should just deal with.  In my implementation of the "Observations" section, no "This is great" or "This sucks" would be allowed; you'd only be allowed to make factual descriptions of how things are.  But, yes, you say "But that's what the whole article is supposed to be", therefore it should be possible to find places to move some factual statements.  How about a "Gran Turismo versus Forza Comparison" section?  No, probably not.


 * But overall I wouldn't mind if the entire criticisms section was removed. But please don't throw out the criticisms I've managed to track down citations for.--SportWagon 17:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * History now shows I moved the "unsellable prize cars" from "criticisms" to "features". "You" (someone) may want to move it elsewhere, and also likely throw away some of the possible POV and even fluff.--SportWagon 17:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Reformatted References
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,

Another criticism of the game is that there is no smell-o-vision support.
 * Find your source website.
 * Write the criticism into the article.
 * Follow the sentance with the referencing code, and adapt it to your link.
 * Example:

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.


 * 1) ^ Hayterweb article commenting on smell URL accessed January 01 2000


 * -Hayter 13:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

B-spec merge
I believe B-spec should be merged into this article. There's nothing about it that cannot be (and probably already is not) fully explained here. ~ Hibana 23:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, I really just mindlessly created it because of a redlink in the GT article. There's really no special/specific information in the B-Spec one.  -VetteDude 19:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. A game mode has no business being an article, especially with such an ambiguous title. The content should be added to this, and then B-spec should be deleted rather than set up as a redirect. No one looking for GT4 will search for B-spec. - Hayter 22:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. It seemed so obvious to me that I didn't bother "voting". I agree with everything Hayter says immediately above.--SportWagon 22:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. I too found it odd that this article even existed, plus it's somewhat of an "orphan". Bsharkey 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Was VetteDude saying they would clean it up?--SportWagon 16:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Were A-spec B-spec and C-spec originally exclusively Mazda marketing terms? In GT1 there was the prize Mazda Demio A-spec, and also a Mazda RX-7 A-spec (perhaps actually spelled "A spec"). These returned in GT2, along with a Mazda Miata A Spec, Mazda Miata B Spec, and Mazda Miata C Spec, and also a Mazda AZ-1 A-spec. Of course, A-spec was used in the full title of GT3, and then A-spec and B-spec appeared as game modes in GT4.--SportWagon 17:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not a big follower of Formula 1, but I am pretty sure A-spec and B-spec are Formula 1 racing terms. Every team basically has their A-spec and B-spec cars.  They're typically different model years (versions) of the same car within a racing team, from what I know.  Bsharkey 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the F1 stuff is correct.. Every team has two cars in a race, and they're identical (except for names of drivers, etc.).. they also have some back-up cars, but they're the same as the race cars.. a team's cars don't differ from each other.

Citations for Jeremy Clarkson, esp. conclusions.
It seems the paragraph about the Jeremy Clarkson comparison, especially the conclusions, might benefit from citations. Perhaps... OTOH, a web search suggests we should check for details in Gran Turismo (game)--but they don't have a citation either, though they suggest his cars weren't truly comparable. --SportWagon 21:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2006/1/1/2265
 * Thanks for finding and adding the Youtube clip. I'll need to find time to go through what he did to see whether he likely ended up on "sports" or "normal" tires in his PlayStation version (you can't tell from the clip).  If he used "sports" tires they're artificially sticky, and probably account for at least 5 seconds a lap.  I think he's misinterpreting what Fernando Alonso actually meant.  I'd interpret what Alonso said as "I know the layout, so I can get straight down to learning the details".--SportWagon 20:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section include the claim that the car driven in the game was an NSX-R. while it is true that you can see the NSX-R's rear wing in there, some times the wing is the normal one from the NSX. Perhaps they shot some clips with the two of them. Should be verified first. --Cirilobeto 05:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

More Criticisms
I have some more criticisms that have been discussed many times on GT Planet.


 * Articles here are supposed to be factual, and NPOV (Neutral Point-of-View). Omission of points is seen as preferable to expressing opinions.--SportWagon 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

1. There is no realtime for the endurance races. It just has continuous daylight. Also, there are very few cars for such a long race.


 * By few cars, I think you mean as competitors (ie. you don't mean as available entrants). The points are fact.  Can you find citations other than board discussion suggesting that one or both are bad?--SportWagon 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Some people are annoyed with the random driver selection, claiming that it may cause an unfair disadvantage to the user. Having "just AWD" would mean that 200hp AWD cars would end up racing against 500hp AWD cars. A big disadvantage towards the user if they are using the former.


 * That's the way the game works. Unless a reviewer (not at a board) said that was a bad feature, it's not a valid citable criticism.  Even from GT1 many like the ability to set up arbitary challenges.  I.e to try and beat a much more powerful car.  Apart from that, you go back and get a more powerful car so you can win.  (Okay, so then maybe the powerful AI doesn't show up, which can seem silly).--SportWagon 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

3. I've heard people complain about the driving missions, but I've never done them. I've heard something about having time added if you hit literally anything.


 * At this point you barely have a point-of-view there. Previous versions of GT were criticized by some for being too easy.  The driving missions may have fixed that.--SportWagon 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

4. I and other GT Planet members have agreed that the guide lap license tests are annoying. You're given a car with fewer RPMs than the pace car, and you're expected to keep up. The whole guide lap is bogus.


 * Other people complain about it being too easy to run into the back of that car. I.e. that it's too slow at times.  I'm a so-so driver, and the pace car waits for me just fine.  I've silvered most such tests.  (Perhaps not Hong Kong).  But, yes, these tests probably aren't one of their better ideas.  But again, valid citations are needed for criticisms.--SportWagon 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

5. The enormous amount of Skylines, Lancers, Civics, etc, in this game have led to many people complaining about the Japanese bias of this game. Some have complained that there are Lancers, Civics, etc that aren't even significantly different from eachother. Some are even thrown in as "special models" even if the car is just in a rare color.


 * Why should a game originating from Japan be criticised for having a Japanese bias? Shouldn't we be happy they were willing and able to share? --SportWagon 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

6. I do saw a minor replay criticism that on the replay, the red meter disappears like a car named Amuse CarbonR. I saw that the red meter is missing, SportsWagon. Best Gamer 25 July 2006

7. Why there is no Lamborghini, Porsche and Ferrari vehicles? Electronic Arts holds the rights and does not allow all 3 vehicles in this game. The fans should stop complaining.

Shouldn't it also be noted that he used a gamepad and not a force feedback steering wheel? There is also a way to adjust GT4's level of realism in the settings page and also disable traction control and stability control.

Criticism
"This segment (the top gear one) has been a source of discussion on if the game is truly an accurate driving simulation" It might be a driving simulation, but no game will ever replace getting out there and driving.. of course you're not gonna get the same time in the game as in real life.. get off your couch and go to a race track!

Abosolutely no need for criticisms.
Seriously how do you have a criticisms section?? No game is perfect. Ex. Forza and other related games dont have a criticisms section..which im sure they have their flaws. Im not a fanboy. Just get rid of it..


 * Couldn't you view the fact that this article has a Criticisms section as an indication of inherent overall confidence in the game? I.e. that it and its articles are better than the others you mention?--SportWagon 16:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Awards
"Best game in the world award from a "Secret game player""

wtf?


 * Removed already. I call that "fannish vandalism".--SportWagon 23:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Images
The number of images seems to be growing without purpose. The concern here is analogous to Quotefarm. ENeville 02:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)