- 1
- United States
- nonficshaun
Seriously, whoever is responsible for the AI coding & penalties should be fired...then flogged, publicly...then rehired once healed...then flogged the moment they arrive for work...then demoted to cleaning the restrooms with their own toothbrushes...then promoted back to AI coding and development to engineer a level of competition that makes sense, keeps the challenge, and penalizes AI. Essentially, punish the employees getting paid to punish the people who bought the game, thus allowing the employees to be employees in the first place. Why frustrate loyal, paying fans while allowing the beneficiaries of our hard earned money to remain unaccountable?
That may seem harsh, but how is something so foundatinal to "simulation" driving ignored when it affects every player equally?
Every single race is the same! It's like reading the first chapter of a best seller again and again, only at differing rates of speed. Players cannot live on rolling starts alone, to paraphrase someone more famous than I. If I notice that I'm losing races due to my lack of skill, I can practice and improve. I cannot improve the idiocy that is GT AI. My choices usually boil down to crummy offline competition or lame online lobbies replete with noob demolitoin derby drivers, trolls, and cruise lobbies. (I can deal with online usually, but who can argue the offline races are often more conveinent and could be balanced better?)
Yawn.
It's a shame really, becasue GT is a stunning game full of possiblities and hours of automotive enjoyment. GT6 should be above reproach and dominate the field it spawned, yet it has gone half-hearted in areas that matter and the PD group has provided too much peripheral fluff that caters to small fractions of the game's population. You can argue, again, that the GPS logger is useful somehow, or the VGT cars don't really need an interior, or that GT Academy is a worthy expense if it engages widespread competition and growth. Over all, these things only benefit a few while the largest cross-section of players continue to race frustrating, uninteresting opponents in seasonal, career, and arcade races.
If the AI actually raced in a world where anything could go wrong, and actually drove in an off-rails, un-prescribed layout and pace, then we'd have a game that honors 15 years of heritage rather than shields its own glory. Consider the Senna content for a moment. We see a stellar driver who lost a race because he failed to navigate a corner properly, raced better in rain, battled his rivals, and did not always race his A game. We laud his ability to overcome the chaos in his career, but would he have nurtured that career if it bore the same characteristics of GT AI? Doubtful.
After 6.5 iterations of GranTurismo and 15 years of practice, you'd think the AI would shine and players would have options that matched skill to difficulty levels. You'd think our computerized AI would pose a challenge similar to Deep Blue vs. Bobby Fisher if we felt we could command a car like Fisher commanded a meager pawn. Yes, most of us are not at that level of driving, but if the game needs a code for AI, why gives us one that feels unrelenting in its tunnel vision? I might as well fuel a Pagani with low grade petro since it's easier and more cost efficent, acting on the same rationale. It may work, but a purist would certainly slap me if I were discovered. We've all discovered the 70 octane petro of AI codes, how do we (as self-appointed purists) slap the coders? They seem untouchable, unfortunately.
That may seem harsh, but how is something so foundatinal to "simulation" driving ignored when it affects every player equally?
Every single race is the same! It's like reading the first chapter of a best seller again and again, only at differing rates of speed. Players cannot live on rolling starts alone, to paraphrase someone more famous than I. If I notice that I'm losing races due to my lack of skill, I can practice and improve. I cannot improve the idiocy that is GT AI. My choices usually boil down to crummy offline competition or lame online lobbies replete with noob demolitoin derby drivers, trolls, and cruise lobbies. (I can deal with online usually, but who can argue the offline races are often more conveinent and could be balanced better?)
Yawn.
It's a shame really, becasue GT is a stunning game full of possiblities and hours of automotive enjoyment. GT6 should be above reproach and dominate the field it spawned, yet it has gone half-hearted in areas that matter and the PD group has provided too much peripheral fluff that caters to small fractions of the game's population. You can argue, again, that the GPS logger is useful somehow, or the VGT cars don't really need an interior, or that GT Academy is a worthy expense if it engages widespread competition and growth. Over all, these things only benefit a few while the largest cross-section of players continue to race frustrating, uninteresting opponents in seasonal, career, and arcade races.
If the AI actually raced in a world where anything could go wrong, and actually drove in an off-rails, un-prescribed layout and pace, then we'd have a game that honors 15 years of heritage rather than shields its own glory. Consider the Senna content for a moment. We see a stellar driver who lost a race because he failed to navigate a corner properly, raced better in rain, battled his rivals, and did not always race his A game. We laud his ability to overcome the chaos in his career, but would he have nurtured that career if it bore the same characteristics of GT AI? Doubtful.
After 6.5 iterations of GranTurismo and 15 years of practice, you'd think the AI would shine and players would have options that matched skill to difficulty levels. You'd think our computerized AI would pose a challenge similar to Deep Blue vs. Bobby Fisher if we felt we could command a car like Fisher commanded a meager pawn. Yes, most of us are not at that level of driving, but if the game needs a code for AI, why gives us one that feels unrelenting in its tunnel vision? I might as well fuel a Pagani with low grade petro since it's easier and more cost efficent, acting on the same rationale. It may work, but a purist would certainly slap me if I were discovered. We've all discovered the 70 octane petro of AI codes, how do we (as self-appointed purists) slap the coders? They seem untouchable, unfortunately.
