Could Driveclubs' trouble be the source of GT6's content delays?

I don't think I missed much. But then forgive me for not being as cool as you.

And JohnnyP, as you might note, someone is having fun, and someone else is spending a lot of time grumping on message boards. I intend to not be spending a lot of time around here tomorrow. ;)

You don't really know how to debate a point, do you?

Subject: The AI is not good enough to simulate a race. Evidence is presented to support the argument.
Your response: I have fun with the AI, so it's good. You're just moaning while I have fun. Wink.

That isn't how you refute a point in a debate but it's all you ever do. If you enjoy the AI then fine, but if you're going to quote someone saying they think it's poor at least come up with something better than "I like it, I lose sometimes" as if that's in any way a response to what was said.
 
Last edited:
I don't think I missed much. But then forgive me for not being as cool as you.

You're forgiven. :rolleyes:

It's what eventually became rickrolling, it's basically a troll. I was attempting to say in an entertaining way that even if (remember, if, I'm not saying they're going to do it) GT8 was a troll game in which Polyphony sent a big F.U. to all the players, there would still be some people who would buy it.

Not a large number of people and I specified that, because by and large consumers are fairly discerning, but there are the rabid fans out there who would buy anything with a GT logo on the front.

And there would. I'm pretty sure you know that these people exist. I'm not even insinuating that you're one of them, because while you're pretty vociferous about defending PD, I don't think you buy their games without consideration.

Polyphony could make a game with absolutely nothing in it, and a few people would still buy it. That's the power of branding, and that's the power that the Gran Turismo brand built up over years of making games at the forefront of the genre.

You could make that same point about handicapping the AI with difficulty levels.

Do you think that a real race between me in a Ferrari 458 and Sebastian Vettel in a Ford Focus would be even largely similar to a race between me and another person of my own skill level in identical cars? Both might result in a tight finish, but the racing to get there would likely be very, very different.

Going head to head with an opponent of equal skill in equal machinery is the most difficult, and I think the most exciting, racing possible. It requires strategy, planning, and improvisation in equal measure.

Racing against the AI in GT6 requires none of those, regardless of how good or otherwise your car is, it simply requires that you hit a target lap time.
 
You could make that same point about handicapping the AI with difficulty levels.

You could, but you'd be mistaken. Handicapping the AI puts everyone including me, in the same cars, and scales the competition to my skill level, essentially, the way all games I've ever played work.

GT as is, I cannot choose the same car/tire combinations as the AI and hope to have anything close to a competitive race, even if I start with a 30 second disadvantage and have 3 laps to close the gap. I must randomly search levels of disadvantages through power, grip, tires etc., until I hit upon a combination where I get to the finish line just ahead of the competition, who put up no fight at all, and in fact, will slow down to let me win.

You don't really know how to debate a point, do you?

Subject: The AI is not good enough to simulate a race. Evidence is presented to support the argument.
Your response: I have fun with the AI, so it's good. You're just moaning while I have fun. Wink.

That isn't how you refute a point in a debate but it's all you ever do.
Post of the Month right there...nail on the head:cheers:
 
I have never known releasing a game for the public to buy to be a problem. ;) So is the "solution" to not offer any Prologues, when a number of fans want them? What makes them wrong and you right?

Well, you certainly missed the point of my post. No, releasing a game for the public to buy is not the problem, releasing half a game and failing to support it properly is. The attitude that I spoke of as a problem is the one that way too many people are willing to fork out even more money for anything with the name GT on it. This is the attitude that allows PD to put out such a sub standard product like GT6, completely ignore "the fans" you so highly speak of and then even think about putting out another installment of the series before finishing the current one.
 
Going head to head with an opponent of equal skill in equal machinery is the most difficult, and I think the most exciting, racing possible. It requires strategy, planning, and improvisation in equal measure.

Racing against the AI in GT6 requires none of those, regardless of how good or otherwise your car is, it simply requires that you hit a target lap time.

This.
 
Do you think that a real race between me in a Ferrari 458 and Sebastian Vettel in a Ford Focus would be even largely similar to a race between me and another person of my own skill level in identical cars? Both might result in a tight finish, but the racing to get there would likely be very, very different.

Going head to head with an opponent of equal skill in equal machinery is the most difficult, and I think the most exciting, racing possible. It requires strategy, planning, and improvisation in equal measure.

Racing against the AI in GT6 requires none of those, regardless of how good or otherwise your car is, it simply requires that you hit a target lap time.

I don't fully agree with your analogy, since there is tuning and detuning, drivers aids etc.

I'm sure there are some people who prefer to be in different machinery for reasons like to make it more of a challenge to overtake by slipstreaming.
However, I'm pretty sure Vettel would love to be in the same machinery as Rosberg and Hamilton, perhaps not so much the reverse.:D


You don't really know how to debate a point, do you?

Subject: The AI is not good enough to simulate a race. Evidence is presented to support the argument.
Your response: I have fun with the AI, so it's good. You're just moaning while I have fun. Wink.

That isn't how you refute a point in a debate but it's all you ever do. If you enjoy the AI then fine, but if you're going to quote someone saying they think it's poor at least come up with something better than "I like it, I lose sometimes" as if that's in any way a response to what was said.

I disagree, it appears to me he wasn't debating whether the ai was "good" or "bad" but just stating how he makes races interesting. In any case, the post you quoted definitely wasn't.


You could, but you'd be mistaken. Handicapping the AI puts everyone including me, in the same cars, and scales the competition to my skill level, essentially, the way all games I've ever played work.

GT as is, I cannot choose the same car/tire combinations as the AI and hope to have anything close to a competitive race, even if I start with a 30 second disadvantage and have 3 laps to close the gap. I must randomly search levels of disadvantages through power, grip, tires etc., until I hit upon a combination where I get to the finish line just ahead of the competition, who put up no fight at all, and in fact, will slow down to let me win.

You haven't really explained why it would be mistaken.
 
Last edited:
Varying levels of difficulty is different from having to detune your car or in some cases use aids for this reason. With different levels of ai difficulty the ai would put up a battle for different levels of gamers. Whereas just giving yourself a faster or slower car you are still up against an ai that is very simple and also is built to let you win.

A sustained battle for most racers is infinitely more enjoyable than a race that is quite a chase the rabbit to the end, hoping your car is slow or fast enough to make it close.

With separate levels of difficulty slow drivers would be able to have fun with a opponent that drives at their level and could still enjoy close racing (close racing is different than a close finish) and hard setting would make it enjoyable for fast drivers to have the same experience. You can not do this with the way GT is currently set up, you must drive a car that is noticeably faster than the fastest car the ai is using. There is no way to have a battle for first as to make up the gap to first you must already be running much faster laps than the driver there.
 
You haven't really explained why it would be mistaken.
Real life example then. My brother and I raced karts. I was older and heavier so with the same skill I couldn't keep up to him but less than a second back. My solution? Ballast him to eliminate the weight advantage, we both run the same kart, even race. If my skill level is a bit lower, add some extra ballast to give me a little advantage. We corner roughly the same, accelerate etc. We actually "race", side by side, nose to tail etc.

PD version. My brother and I are in the same kart but he's horrible, brakes 2-3 times for each corner, is scared to get close to me so he backs off when I pass, even scared to win so he slows down near the finish. PD solution? Johhny you are way too fast in the same kart, let your brother stay in his 100CC 25hp kart, give him a 25 second head start in a 3 lap race and you drive a 8hp 4 stroke with skinny tires and you'll still make it to the flag around the same time. He'll blow you away in a straight line but you'll still outcorner him and be faster overall.

One version is actually racing, the other is not even close. In case it's too complicated, I am me in this analogy and my brother is the AI.
 
You don't really know how to debate a point, do you?
Yes, board mother, I do (edit: what Synon said). I wanted to indicate that people who insist that you can't race the A.I. or ever lose to the A.I. or have fun with the A.I. CAN, if you give the game a chance. Which MEANS, you do not have to consider GT6 as NOTHING more than a hot lapper app. And unless you have memory deficiency, you surely remember me saying this. Unless you do a lot of skimming.

I HAVE mentioned more than a couple of times that yes, the bots need to be improved. You grouchers have a weird attitude, that if we don't howl about the cars all sounding like vacuum cleaners that we LOVE the sound in GT6. That if we don't gripe endlessly about the bots that we LOVE the bots. That if we don't spit at the Standard cars that we want ALL the cars to be Standards, we love them so much. And that we love Kaz and Polyphony Digital SO much that... well, see below.

You're forgiven. :rolleyes:

It's what eventually became rickrolling, it's basically a troll. I was attempting to say in an entertaining way that even if (remember, if, I'm not saying they're going to do it) GT8 was a troll game in which Polyphony sent a big F.U. to all the players, there would still be some people who would buy it.

Not a large number of people and I specified that, because by and large consumers are fairly discerning, but there are the rabid fans out there who would buy anything with a GT logo on the front.
I think you are highly mistaken, young person. As perpetually addicted as gamers are to anything with Madden, Halo or that 🤬 GTA series, they will not buy ANYTHING with that name on it if it turns out to be, say, Tetris.

You perpetuate a false meme. :rolleyes:

Well, you certainly missed the point of my post. No, releasing a game for the public to buy is not the problem, releasing half a game and failing to support it properly is. The attitude that I spoke of as a problem is the one that way too many people are willing to fork out even more money for anything with the name GT on it. This is the attitude that allows PD to put out such a sub standard product like GT6, completely ignore "the fans" you so highly speak of and then even think about putting out another installment of the series before finishing the current one.
Absolutely wrong on all counts. The only way this argument works is if Kaz and the team have become so enamored with PS4 and the possibilities it offers, and grown so bored of GT6 that they dropped it. Something much more involved and possibly corporate is going on.

I. Have. Discussed. This. Very. Point. A lot.

I was one of those this time around that said, Yes Kaz, release GT6 when you said you would, and I'll be happy to wait for those updates because GT5 was built buy you and your team with some annoying design choices. Some of that was from the odd way the Japanese look at games like weird little Pokemonish collectibles. Part of it was from bad design choices like the XP system, especially the way it was implemented, and Race Mod that let you race mod only 17 cars, with limp liveries in which you could paint all of one surface. And after racing my sims and Forza 4 after a long hiatus, the physics in GT5 felt too sure and safe, and about a dozen other things I disliked. I was ready to move on to a fresh installment.

Now look, you are clearly aware of two huge Damoclesian swords hanging over GT6 which we have been debating for at least several weeks here.
  • PS4 was released first, and sorely lacks a good racer since Drive Club and Project CARS are late to the party.
  • Rumors of PD working hot n heavy on a Prologue have infected net discussions like a plague.
This is what happens when you release a flagship game like GT6 after a weird GT5 on the old system, and people don't flock to it in the usual flood. Especially when the parent company is starved for liquid cash.

You guys have a very hard point to prove, in that PD has become used to producing weird, wonky, unfinished games, because many of those very same people were there working on every game in the series. GT5, we have discussed to death, and too many people act like GT5 was made in isolation with absolutely nothing else going on to distract the team, when GT PSP was a huge interruption, and a damage build that got mostly scrapped was another. GT6, we're in the process of beating that horse, and you can't ignore the need SONY has for a racing game for PS4. Especially one with Gran Turismo on the box which won't really be Tetris. But even as wonky and weird as GT5 and 6 are, they are pretty darn good racers. Still, they can't hold a candle to whats possible on PS4.

You can rant and rave at those of us who would want a Prologue as blithering idiots or whatever, but you can't deny that this sort of game has some real, actual appeal. And especially the fact that anything Kaz can do on PS3 will be a quantum leap better on PS4.

Now, whatever happens, happens. If it ends up that we get GT7P and GT6 kind of gets leftover work to bring it to GT5 level, you can either waste a lot of time here complaining when you could be enjoying yourself, or you can be more pragmatical about the situation.

And on the matter of enjoying myself, I think I will. You guys sit here and grump forever if you want, but I think having fun is more fun. :D
 
Last edited:
I don't fully agree with your analogy, since there is tuning and detuning, drivers aids etc.

I'm sure there are some people who prefer to be in different machinery for reasons like to make it more of a challenge to overtake by slipstreaming.
However, I'm pretty sure Vettel would love to be in the same machinery as Rosberg and Hamilton, perhaps not so much the reverse.:D

But I think you recognise that a race in equal machinery is qualitatively different to a race between non-equal machinery that is otherwise rigged to give a close result.

There's still a place in games for overtaking challenges and the like, because they can be fun too. I just don't think it should be the primary mode for racing.
 
But I think you recognise that a race in equal machinery is qualitatively different to a race between non-equal machinery that is otherwise rigged to give a close result.

There's still a place in games for overtaking challenges and the like, because they can be fun too. I just don't think it should be the primary mode for racing.

Yes, I agree there is a qualitative difference.
But, for example, would there be much qualitative difference between an AI handicapped to reduce cornering speed to match the skill level of a player on the same tires, compared to the player increasing their cornering speed by fitting stickier tires to match an unhandicapped AI?



Real life example then. My brother and I raced karts. I was older and heavier so with the same skill I couldn't keep up to him but less than a second back. My solution? Ballast him to eliminate the weight advantage, we both run the same kart, even race. If my skill level is a bit lower, add some extra ballast to give me a little advantage. We corner roughly the same, accelerate etc. We actually "race", side by side, nose to tail etc.

PD version. My brother and I are in the same kart but he's horrible, brakes 2-3 times for each corner, is scared to get close to me so he backs off when I pass, even scared to win so he slows down near the finish. PD solution? Johhny you are way too fast in the same kart, let your brother stay in his 100CC 25hp kart, give him a 25 second head start in a 3 lap race and you drive a 8hp 4 stroke with skinny tires and you'll still make it to the flag around the same time. He'll blow you away in a straight line but you'll still outcorner him and be faster overall.

One version is actually racing, the other is not even close. In case it's too complicated, I am me in this analogy and my brother is the AI.

I agree with your first example that tuning can be used when there are different skill levels.

Your second analogy seems to be more about the nature of the AI, their head start etc, which is a different point.


In case it's too complicated

lol
 
Yes, I agree there is a qualitative difference.
But, for example, would there be much qualitative difference between an AI handicapped to reduce cornering speed to match the skill level of a player on the same tires, compared to the player increasing their cornering speed by fitting stickier tires to match an unhandicapped AI?

If each component of the racing were adjustable in that manner, then that would be fine and work well enough. Put both the player and the AI in identical cars, and then remove or add power and grip from the players as appropriate until you get the same speeds both through the corners and the straightaways. The difference would be slight enough that I agree that it would make for pretty acceptable racing. I would support the sort of AI system I think you're describing.


But to try and adjust the player's car to match well the potential cornering and straight line performance of the AI is not an easy task, if you're the player. It takes time, experimentation and some tuning knowledge. And while you can reduce grip even below Comfort Hard by mis-tuning things like camber, it starts becoming a seriously unpleasant driving experience.

I guess that's where the other limiting factor comes in, a pleasant driving experience. If you have to cripple your car through the corners and on the straights so much that it becomes unpleasant to drive, you've really only swapped one devil for another. The problem is mostly that the AI is not competitive in equal machinery, so it really is a case of needing to cripple the player most of the time.


Still, I do think that the simple way of implementing "difficulty" levels would simply be to modify the grip/power levels available to the AI. No need to fiddle with the AI code, just give them a little extra grip/power at each increasing difficulty level, say enough for 1 or 2 seconds per minute per lap. It'd be the same thing but it's much easier for the player to adjust, and the player doesn't have to cripple their car to do so. Even though you're ostensibly not racing in equivalent machinery, anyone who can't view the code will likely never notice the difference.

This is in part why I'm still baffled as to why they haven't implemented difficulty levels. A basic implementation can be done with their systems as they are now, with no major changes at all. Bit of testing to find the right numbers, knock together some menus, job's a good 'un. I feel like it would have been less work than making their dodgy rubber banding system.
 
Back