Better Gamplay or More Content ??
- Thread starter SPORTVAN
- 102 comments
- 5,710 views
- 7,369
- Houston, TX
- ryandude2448
I personally see nothing wrong with being able to do a special event on the moon. It's what makes GT GT. It's like asking why they put the Model T and Mercedes Patent Wagen in GT4. PD and Kaz truly appreciate automobile history, that's what separates them from the rest.
GT is a simulator. Why wouldn't they simulate atmospheric pressure? It's a pretty big part of driving at Matterhorn, some 10,000 ft above sea level.
Your definition of basics and mine are probably totally different. Basics for me could be AI. Which part of that thread were you referring to? Because a livery editor definitely isn't a "basic" part of a game.
- 10,456
- United States
- WrecklessAbandon
- 1,130
- Mexico City
- ppmike921
- MikeB0ssMan
The basics in order:
Physics
Sounds
Graphics
Everything else...just gimmicks, these three are what constituyes the core gameplay, some features may assist them in one way or another but if you can't find a balance between these three then you can polish the turd all you want, it'll still be a turd.
Physics
Sounds
Graphics
Everything else...just gimmicks, these three are what constituyes the core gameplay, some features may assist them in one way or another but if you can't find a balance between these three then you can polish the turd all you want, it'll still be a turd.
- 154
- United Kingdom
- BORDER323
Really ..
So if PD said... GT6 will include 2000 new cars ... but they all drive exactly the same .. you would consider that a good thing ?
- 154
- United Kingdom
- BORDER323
Exactly
research
Premium
- 847
- Ohio
- ecko_driver81
Ok, but why can't we have these wonderful things offline?
The rabbit-chase, rolling roadblock races in "career" mode are atrocious. Good, clean, organized online racing is only viable to the few who have such time to set aside. I want to pop in the disk and have a fun, hard race on my own time -not wasting this precious commodity by backing out of Arcade races over and over trying to set a decent grid. Giving us options for good racing offline would boost the total replayability, satisfaction, and fun-factor into the simulated stratosphere, for all!
mister dog
(Banned)
- 8,396
- Spain
- misterdog
- misterdog7
That's a no brainer; gameplay as, apart from the physics model it has been flawed for a long time now.
- 931
But that is not what the original post is saying.
What you are essentially saying is that certain things are included that you would include instead, for example a BMW 4 series rather than an E30. "Someone decides what vehicles are given priority over others."
That is more of a choice about which car you favour rather (or what bit of content/asset you favour) than improving the quality of the gameplay experience at the expense of more content.
Which is not an entirely correct assumption to work on really.
- 2,993
- Brisbane
- jimipitbull
- 472
- France
- poumpoumk
The only problem with that is the TIME ! If you want to play seriously in a championship you have to find a good forum dedicated to that, then you can subscribe to a championship, you need to adapt your schedule for each training/race... But a lot of people can't do that because they can't schedule "gaming time". I know that I will play the game but I don't know when!
I would like to have the same hardcore level (very good IA, no more chasing the rabbit, mechanical damage, long race...) but in the offline mode. Then I can play when... I can.
- 154
- United Kingdom
- BORDER323
No thats incorrect
Its about basically KAZ .. who is " the man " in charge of GT, deciding .. lets not focus on core gameplay attributes such as real tyre wear / real brake wear or fade ( not just in a race .. as in the overall mileage of a car .. that stays.. so why dont we have to replace tyres / brakes .. or actual mechanical damage and engine faults ) which would enhance the game in a better and more reaslistic way ... lets concentrate on adding a lunar roving vehicle on the moon instead.
Gt is touted as " the real driving simulator " .. so it baffles me why he doesnt concentrate on making it as realistic as he can b adding the above things, but instead chooses to forego the realism for things like the moon buggy.
- 273
- Italy
In my opinion, for what I've been able to see so far, the game is complete and very, very good. I'd just do 3 things:
1) Improve sounds (they're just unacceptable)
2) Improve AI (FM drivatar, for example, is a great idea)
3) Give the users the possibility to *deactivate* standard cars (everybody happy, this way)
(Ok, let's say 4:
Don't care about cosmetic damages, but collision physics needs to be improved)
1) Improve sounds (they're just unacceptable)
2) Improve AI (FM drivatar, for example, is a great idea)
3) Give the users the possibility to *deactivate* standard cars (everybody happy, this way)
(Ok, let's say 4:
Don't care about cosmetic damages, but collision physics needs to be improved)
- 154
- United Kingdom
- BORDER323
Exactly ... this is the 15th anniversary of GT , how much time [ and moneyy remember - they get paid very well for this ] do they need to get the core elements in a game...
- 931
The lunar rover vehicle is an interesting point.
And to a certain extent, I think it disproves the basis behind your question:
1. The physics model will be the same (One of the reasons why I imagine this was possible was due to the new physics model. There will probably be a parameter for gravity level.)
2. The 'track' is essentially, just another track. So a modeller will be involved.
3. The moon rover is another car, so another modeller will be involved.
If you took a modeller off the rover, you would have one extra premium car. So no exchange for a feature over content there.
If you tool a modeller off the moon, you may have ended up with another track variation. So no exchange for a feature over the content there.
The tweak to the physics model, is just a parameter change.
The coding to make the rest of it happen is probably pretty minimal, and probably entirely scripted.
Yes, Kaz gets to call the shots over whether a developer works on say a livery editor over a track creator, but that is replacing a feature for a feature. Not content for features, as per your original question.
That is a very simplistic way of looking at it.
In 15 years there have been 3 reset buttons hit on the code set. And those are the 3 Playstation platforms. Although some stuff carries over, most gets rewritten when there is a new platform.
Even within different versions of a game on the same platform you end up starting from scratch sometimes in order to improve stuff.
Some of the stuff may also be ruled out due to other considerations: technical, online management, licensing, legal, content approval etc.
mister dog
(Banned)
- 8,396
- Spain
- misterdog
- misterdog7
It complicates things yes but other developers don't seem to have problems with it, and their games improve on all core gameplay elements with each new system year after year (just as one would expect). To me system restrictions sound like the perfect excuse for PD apologists, as they are difficult to rebut by the general crowd that lacks knowledge about these things.
PD seem to have lots of small good ideas and tend to focus on including them all instead of going after the core problems and fixing them.
You can't deny Kaz's enthusiasm but he seems to be spending too much time on features that will benefit the majority by the least amount
GPS GT86 visualiser.. cool...How many people will actually ever use it?
You can't deny Kaz's enthusiasm but he seems to be spending too much time on features that will benefit the majority by the least amount
GPS GT86 visualiser.. cool...How many people will actually ever use it?
- 8,642
- London
- GTP_Stotty
This, pretty much 100%, though I’d add decent AI to that list if we’re forced to use the A Spec mode to generate the cash needed to buy cars 👍
I’m happy enough with the graphics (I can’t see if a car is standard or premium when I’m driving it), though I would like more realistic engine sounds. But for me, before they add even 1% more content, they should fix the rubbish physics.
GT5 was a backwards step in physics when compared to GT5P in 2 key areas
1. How weight transfer is modelled generally, and particularly the affect ABS has on weight transfer
2. The lack of a well defined grip limit that makes the cars feel like they are sliding to some extent all the time
My copy of GT6 should be waiting for me when I get home tomorrow evening – if the cars continue to oversteer when I release brake pressure whilst turning, and slide around like the tarmac is covered in ice, I’ll be far more disappointed than if the game had only 250 cars and 10 tracks.
Tyre wear, brake fade, livery editors, working horns, day night effects, changing weather, damage, tyre smoke, whether standard cars look better or not, whether atmospheric pressure is modelled, engine/drive train swaps, 1,000bhp Supra’s, and every other pedantic idea people come up are completely irrelevant if there are massive holes in the physics engine.
It’s a driving game, make the cars behave like a real cars FFS.
/rant
- 17,337
- United Kingdom
Content, meaning cars and tracks would be my top priority. Honestly, if they hadn't touched anything else since GT4, physics, tuning or customisation wise, I would probably be happy.
But, then they went and showed us how good Premiums could look, so now, graphics have become important, if only because there is still such a massive gap between the good bits and the bad bits.
... and then they showed us how atmospheric it could be lapping the 'ring in the dark, the morning haze, the rain, and the sun, so the detail of the environment became important.
Many of the rest of the features we say the game should have now, are those being implemented by the competition, and therefore the market is dictating peoples expectations. But I know for a fact, that with a good track editor, I would probably spend as much time making tracks, as driving/racing. And with a good livery editor, there would be hours of creativity to be had there too.. and these features are not unreasonable...
Online I don't really care about at all, but I do see the frustration with what should essentially be a pretty simple thing to get right.
As for the physics, there will always be such a chasm of difference between actually driving a real-car, with all it's sensory feed-back, and driving a car in GT, that I will never look to a game to satisfy my driving experience. Sure it's nice, and a good thing, for it to be accurate, but actually, GT physics has never hampered my enjoyment of the game. So sure, they can continue to make improvements, but really, unless they can start to convey the physical sensations of controlling the car, I think continually adding elements to the physics calculations will be seriously diminishing returns vs. the processing power required, and the time required to input the accurate data in the first place.
Just my two cents, we all want to play the game our own way.
But, then they went and showed us how good Premiums could look, so now, graphics have become important, if only because there is still such a massive gap between the good bits and the bad bits.
... and then they showed us how atmospheric it could be lapping the 'ring in the dark, the morning haze, the rain, and the sun, so the detail of the environment became important.
Many of the rest of the features we say the game should have now, are those being implemented by the competition, and therefore the market is dictating peoples expectations. But I know for a fact, that with a good track editor, I would probably spend as much time making tracks, as driving/racing. And with a good livery editor, there would be hours of creativity to be had there too.. and these features are not unreasonable...
Online I don't really care about at all, but I do see the frustration with what should essentially be a pretty simple thing to get right.
As for the physics, there will always be such a chasm of difference between actually driving a real-car, with all it's sensory feed-back, and driving a car in GT, that I will never look to a game to satisfy my driving experience. Sure it's nice, and a good thing, for it to be accurate, but actually, GT physics has never hampered my enjoyment of the game. So sure, they can continue to make improvements, but really, unless they can start to convey the physical sensations of controlling the car, I think continually adding elements to the physics calculations will be seriously diminishing returns vs. the processing power required, and the time required to input the accurate data in the first place.
Just my two cents, we all want to play the game our own way.
Last edited:
- 6,080
- Simcoeace
The OP is exactly right IMO. PD seem to have become fixated on adding more & more "content", while leaving some of the basic shortcomings of GT unaddressed. GT, as a racing game, has been surpassed by a number of other titles in every area, except sheer quantity of events & extraneous add-ons. Yes, time-of-day transitions/weather are nice features, but are secondary to the basic features of challenging AI & meaningful gameplay.
I think an indication of GT's issues can be clearly seen in Inside Sim Racing's "first hour" review.
http://www.insidesimracing.tv/gran-turismo-series/gran-turismo-6-first-hour-w-t500-wheel/
I understand that a generation of GT fans has grown up conditioned to the formulaic grind of GT's gameplay, but anyone looking at the game from a more objective viewpoint, can see it for what it is: boring.
I think an indication of GT's issues can be clearly seen in Inside Sim Racing's "first hour" review.
http://www.insidesimracing.tv/gran-turismo-series/gran-turismo-6-first-hour-w-t500-wheel/
I understand that a generation of GT fans has grown up conditioned to the formulaic grind of GT's gameplay, but anyone looking at the game from a more objective viewpoint, can see it for what it is: boring.
- 154
- United Kingdom
- BORDER323
Well I look at it from a point of view that I used to be heavily involved in racing game creation.. so much so that I have worked on and help develop & create a driver training aid for a very well known le mans team, and can provide photographic / video proof if you so wish.
Anyways..
You obviously are unaware exactly how games are created and what is involved in updating / re-writing code etc.
You ARE also missing the entire point.
It is NOT .. I would rather have a BMW E30 over animated brake dust...
The whole point of my thread... as the name suggests is ..
BETTER GAMEPLAY ... or .. MORE CONTENT !
And the argument behind it is ... KAZ .
He is the man who chooses what gameplay features or content are added.. and I ( and it seems a fair few others ) question his decisions at times.
For many years a substantial amount of the GT community have been requesting that missing gameplay features be added .. and for years KAZ has decided to ignore these requests, and make things like the lunar rover instead.
Anyways
Im not going to keep re-iterating my point to you.. others have understood what I mean and please Don't keep trying to call me out on things you have little knowledge on.
Zer0
(Banned)
- 1,624
We already have both.
-Name a console sim with more long-life, replayability, posibilities, etc than GT.
-Name a console sim with more content.
Of course is not an end, so the reason of all the infinite list of features and improvements that could be applied also to any other sim, plus what already GT has.
-Name a console sim with more long-life, replayability, posibilities, etc than GT.
-Name a console sim with more content.
Of course is not an end, so the reason of all the infinite list of features and improvements that could be applied also to any other sim, plus what already GT has.
- 154
- United Kingdom
- BORDER323
This is actually a perfect example of a complete and utter waste of development time.. sure its fantastic this can be done on a playstation.. but really come on... who the hell is going to use this part of GT .. even if there are some that do.. the percentage will be so small .. and yet I bet a good deal of resources and dev time was wasted on this.
Why not put all the time and resources into that list i linked.. at least it would have a greater impact on how many people benefited from what they have done in the past few years, and would also work better to earning the name.. " the real driving simulator "
Similar threads
- Poll
