Actually, some of them are considered among the best offroad vehicles...."Are Land Rovers ever actually utlized offroad?" is a better question.

LRs are extremely capable in the wet.

i guess the RR Sport I drove through a mudhole in Vermont shouldnt have been able to return home from the trip (and get 26 mpg on the drive) and run flawlessly since. someone pinch me, I may be dreaming!

not sure how much your going to save. a new land cruiser starts at $79k.

I've driven LR4s, Range Rovers, and Range Rover Sports through some seriously hairy stuff. On street tires. They're extremely capable.

People are so disappointed that it didn't have a 220 MPH top speed that they forget that it still hit 217 MPH in 1990 with a V6. I don't know about you, but that is pretty damn impressive to me.

I don't know, the barbarian starts at base evoque money. truth be told there isn't alot else like it for the money, but there must be a reason for a lack of sales (same with suzuki vitara) I guess the british want a premium badge for that price. if it's for abuse then a Dacia Duster starting at $16k is more than up to…

Woah woah woah. The XJ220 was/is still great

I work for a company that arguably makes the best and most widely implemented gesture control product in the world (you can probably guess), and even I'll admit that gesture controls are a terrible idea, and not just in a car. There is literally no situation I can think of that this solves that wouldn't be more…

And in certain regions or by special order...brown.

RWD

30 fps is okay as long as the developers understand how to compensate for the lack of framerates for high motion. For example, in KOTOR they actually used the lightsaber tracer effect from the movies, which had the lightsaber twirling appear as a fluid and majestic spectacle.

How about a solid 60? Fluctuating fps never looks good.

It comes down to the type of game. So yes, frames per second can be a huge deal. In this case, yes frames per second does matter.

Mind you 24fps was only a compromise made in the early days of film. It balanced the smoothest motion with the least amount of film stock used. Even at 24 frames per second a 2 hour film needs over two miles of film.

HAHAHA you seriously think they should bring the framerate down to 24fps FOR A RACING GAME?

You're going to be missing like 20-30feet of pavement between each frame it's kind of a big deal..

I agree, that 24fps stuff does only apply to theaters. It doesn't even work on monitors/TVs. You only get a bad expericence, nothing more.

Even with normal games that is a stupid argument. Games aren't losing anything by running at 1080p and 60fps, they are just given you a better experience overall. But this is a driving game, it's especially important for it to run at 60fps. If there's any game you need to make sure runs at 60fps it's a driving game.

Games at 24 fps do not feel smooth at all. It does not bring "that authentic film look". It looks choppy. Because in film and games things are rendered differently. A game can potentially look as good as film at 24 fps, I'll give it that, but it is much easier to achieve the same smoothness by just making it a 60 fps…