GTPNewsWire
Contributing Writer
- 21,597
- GTPHQ
This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:
This article was published by Michael Leary (@Terronium-12) on August 10th, 2017 in the Gran Turismo Sport category.
He just wilfully puts out incorrect information to make it all sound better than it is.
Personally I think that is very wide of the mark. If this site is a PD PR machine why would they let the very open discussions we see about the game. They are reporting what has been said for us to discuss, which we are doing in a free and frank manner. This site is by some margin one of the best around IMO.Just wondering why we sugarcoat it like that, we have a word for that sentence: lie.
Sorry I just can't understand this. And what I mostly fail to understand (as a new member) is why gtplanet does this.
The articles looked fair and just when I arrivee here. But now we are getting closer to release they just seem to be a pr machine that PD can use whenever they want. They can make bold claims an gtplanet will put them forth not even trying to be critical.
Everybody's experience is different so it would be stupid to base it on experience. Many people will spend 100% of their time in online mode, some others may spend 95% of their time in scapes.It depends how he counts it
By mode or experience
Exactly. Developer should always measure in the available amount of content/features. I have a feeling we haven't quite seen the full scope of GTS yet. Or maybe we have. I'll just reserve judgement until the thing is out.Everybody's experience is different so it would be stupid to base it on experience. Many people will spend 100% of their time in online mode, some others may spend 95% of their time in scapes.
No seriously how can you be respected by a community as a valuable source if information when you choose to go along with these unverified claims?
That depends on whether you decide to approach it critically yourself or not. GTPlanet reports info that the team receives and we discuss it in the forums. Personally I prefer my news as raw as it can get, so I can apply my own thinking and viewpoints on the matter.But now we are getting closer to release they just seem to be a pr machine that PD can use whenever they want.
Personally I think that is very wide of the mark. If this site is a PD PR machine why would they let the very open discussions we see about the game. They are reporting what has been said for us to discuss, which we are doing in a free and frank manner. This site is by some margin one of the best around IMO.
That depends on whether you decide to approach it critically yourself or not. GTPlanet reports info that the team receives and we discuss it in the forums. Personally I prefer my news as raw as it can get, so I can apply my own thinking and viewpoints on the matter.
Online 15% *
Single player 5%
Car and manufacturer history lessons 5%
Drawing stickers and car painting 25%
Photo mode 50%
Four years of life wasted waiting.
*includes five real world tracks to cover FIA licence and that Sport in title
Not really, no.Hope this is more nuanced of a reply.
This article is just, well it's no article, it just is advertisement. Nothing more.
This is what I have the biggest problem with. It's absolutely appalling.includes five real world tracks to cover FIA licence and that Sport in title
Fair enough on reporting the news but this is unacceptable.Not really, no.
We've reported that this person said this thing. We noted that it seems curious, given what we know so far, but nevertheless that was what was said.
As you don't like what was said and cannot possibly conceive of a way for it to be true, we're now a personal PR machine for not immediately calling them out on what was said. Or because we didn't somehow get to Malaysia and travel back in time to ask follow-up questions. Or something.
It's a piece of information given by a game developer on a game being developed. We have brought that information forward. How accurate it is will be revealed in the fullness of time, because we won't know until the game is here. Anything else is speculation - and potentially defamation.
If online play really is only a small percentage of the game, traditionalists can rest easy, especially with Polyphony Digital confirming there are no plans in place for GT7.
Online 15% *
Single player 5%
Car and manufacturer history lessons 5%
Drawing stickers and car painting 25%
Photo mode 50%
Four years of life wasted waiting.
*includes five real world tracks to cover FIA licence and that Sport in title
No it's not, there is an If and really is in that sentence.Fair enough on reporting the news but this is unacceptable.
First word in that line is 'If'. If the thing said is true, then consequence. What's left unsaid there is the last part of the If-Then-Else conditional statement (because it's an either/or).Fair enough on
Not really, no.
We've reported that this person said this thing. We noted that it seems curious, given what we know so far, but nevertheless that was what was said.
As you don't like what was said and cannot possibly conceive of a way for it to be true, we're now a personal PR machine for reporting what was said rather than calling them out on what was said. Or because we didn't somehow get to Malaysia and travel back in time to ask follow-up questions. Or something.
It's a piece of information given by a game developer on a game being developed. We have brought that information forward. How accurate it is will be revealed in the fullness of time, because we won't know until the game is here. Anything else is speculation - and potentially defamation.
This is what I have the biggest problem with. It's absolutely appalling.
Not really, no.
We've reported that this person said this thing. We noted that it seems curious, given what we know so far, but nevertheless that was what was said.
As you don't like what was said and cannot possibly conceive of a way for it to be true, we're now a personal PR machine for reporting what was said rather than calling them out on what was said. Or because we didn't somehow get to Malaysia and travel back in time to ask follow-up questions. Or something.
It's a piece of information given by a game developer on a game being developed. We have brought that information forward. How accurate it is will be revealed in the fullness of time, because we won't know until the game is here. Anything else is speculation - and potentially defamation.