First in game look at "standard" cars in Granturismo 6

[sems4arsenal]

Bring on the standards.

Heck make more standards, presumabley they can make the models for those quicker. We had the Jaguar XF and Lamborghini Countachs and Bugatti Veyron as new cars that were standard in GT5. I want more.

At the end of the day for me and I am sure many other people, the physics is what will make these cars great, the new tyre and suspension model will make them fun to drive again.

I don't even .... wait what?

 

[mister dog]

Sounds like your Easily impressed then.

I know a classic car when i see one and T10 is way better at picking out the right gems that carnuts want to drive.

(But let's not slide in another GT-FM discussion )

 

[ildd]

I know a classic car when i see one and T10 is way better at picking out the right gems that carnuts want to drive.

(But let's not slide in another GT-FM discussion )

I don't think you understand how an opinion works. Not every car nut is the same.

 

[Nielsen]

I know a classic car when i see one and T10 is way better at picking out the right gems that carnuts want to drive.

(But let's not slide in another GT-FM discussion )

Let's just say that PD is terribly bad at picking cars these days. So far there is less than 10 cars on the GT6 car list that I want to drive. Most of them are trivial to say the least.

 

[mister dog]

I don't think you understand how an opinion works. Not every car nut is the same.

I understand my own opinion if that counts . The definition of a "classic" is something 80% of car enthusiasts will agree upon tough and FM just has a better thought out list spanning continents and time, even with half the cars on offer than GT's library.

And that's the last i'm gonna say about this so to not hijack this thread in the wrong direction

 

[VolkswagenX]

I don't think you understand how an opinion works. Not every car nut is the same.

This is true but... I don't feel car nuts will have a huge problem with all the duplicats being gone...

 

[ildd]

This is true but... I don't feel car nuts will have a huge problem with all the duplicats being gone...

That’s not what I was referring to. mister dog said that all car nuts see classics as the same, which isn't true.

Whether he's referring to a 60's Ferrari or 60's Chevy, I'm not sure.

Edit- duplicates are viewed differently too. One person could count 400 dupes, another sees 230. What defines a dupe though? Viewpoints are different.

 

[VolkswagenX]

That’s not what I was referring to. mister dog said that all car nuts see classics as the same, which isn't true.

Whether he's referring to a 60's Ferrari or 60's Chevy, I'm not sure.

Edit- duplicates are viewed differently too. One person could count 400 dupes, another sees 230. What defines a dupe though? Viewpoints are different.

My bad. I agree with Mister Dog about the 80% that car nuts agree upon.

As for dupes. It isn't about what counts as a dupe, it's about being able to do without 20 versions of the miata when 4 should be enough to satisfy any car nuts needs.

 

[archie_aileron]

This is true but... I don't feel car nuts will have a huge problem with all the duplicats being gone...

1) They are not called duplicats.

2) They are not duplicates. They are different model years of the same cars. There are subtle differences between them. I am sure Miata, RX-7, and GT-R enthusiasts appreciate the different models available.

3) They are standard cars ported from GT4. How many new cars in GT5 and GT6 are "duplicates"?

This is why I don't understand the rage againt "duplicates". Is porting a couple Miatas from GT4 so much better than porting them all? People should be happy instead of complaining IMO.

 

[mister dog]

2) They are not duplicates. They are different model years of the same cars. There are subtle differences between them. I am sure Miata, RX-7, and GT-R enthusiasts appreciate the different models available.

Sorry but if the car looks exactly the same 5 to 10 times over they are damned duplicates 99% of people don't give a flying F about, and a cheap way to fill the car count also which would be their main objective.

 

[ildd]

Sorry but if the car looks exactly the same 5 to 10 times over they are damned duplicates 99% of people don't give a flying F about, and a cheap way to fill the car count also which would be their main objective.

Well, a 2008 v6 Mustang and a 2008 v8 Mustang LOOK pretty similar, aside from a couple badges, right? What's the difference then?

 

[Rafael F]

I still can't believe why Sony thinks it's a wise decision to keep the standard cars in the series. Seeing these pictures really make me reconsider whether I want this game.

I think they keep the standards in order to have more cars on the grid.
On GT mode in training section, the grid is limited to 6 or 8 cars, don't remember exactly right now, I think it's the maximum number of premium cars that ps3 can handle without compromising the framerate.

 

[mister dog]

Well, a 2008 v6 Mustang and a 2008 v8 Mustang LOOK pretty similar, aside from a couple badges, right? What's the difference then?

Twice is still not the same as having it 10 times over ainnit?

 

[VolkswagenX]

1) They are not called duplicats.

2) They are not duplicates. They are different model years of the same cars. There are subtle differences between them. I am sure Miata, RX-7, and GT-R enthusiasts appreciate the different models available.

3) They are standard cars ported from GT4. How many new cars in GT5 and GT6 are "duplicates"?

This is why I don't understand the rage againt "duplicates". Is porting a couple Miatas from GT4 so much better than porting them all? People should be happy instead of complaining IMO.

1.1) Battery on my keyboard is low so sometimes letters go missing or I forget to ad a space.
1.2) English is not my first language nor is it my second language.
1.3) You're being a D. If you really wanted to be helpful in pointing out a spelling error, you could have sent me a p.m.

2) They are to the majority. I can understand an enthusiast appreciating many different specs of the same car in real life but I'm sure they can go without the same generation of a certain car where the only differnce is 2mm in ride height. Example: I would kill to have a MK2 Golf G60 in a GT game and I can appreciate every model mode from 84(?) til 92. Does that mean I need them all to be in the game? A G60 and a 87 16v GTI would be enough to satisfy my needs.

3) Never said anything about GT5 and GT6 "duplicates"...

 

[VolkswagenX]

I think they keep the standards in order to have more cars on the grid.
On GT mode in training section, the grid is limited to 6 or 8 cars, don't remember exactly right now, I think it's the maximum number of premium cars that ps3 can handle without compromising the framerate.

Never had a big problem with 12 premium cars on a track in online races.

 

[Rafael F]

Never had a big problem with 12 premium cars on a track in online races.

True, but 12 cars is still a small grid.

 

[VolkswagenX]

True, but 12 cars is still a small grid.

12 cars is the max in A-spec races. Only arcade lets you race with 16 cars.

 

[Rafael F]

12 cars is the max in A-spec races. Only arcade lets you race with 16 cars.

12 premium cars is already a good number of cars on grid.
I wouldn't care if they got rid of standards, I thought standards could be important to bigger grids, but 12 to 16 is not a big difference.

 

[Northstar]

Bigger grids are worthless if the A.I. is slow and drives terribly.

 

[eSZee]

but 12 to 16 is not a big difference.

I'd say a 33% increase is quite a difference.

 

[Griffith500]

Funny you should say this. Someone posted this video on here a few weeks ago. It's very, very informative about how game designers and other designers treat this concept of "fun" as this kind of generic thing, where actually there are definitely some specific things you can do to make your games more fun.



I forget who posted it. Props to you, whoever you were.

While I agree to some extent that "fun" is kind of nebulous, at some point you have to draw the line between a good game and a bad one. Pretty much every game every created has at least one person that enjoys it, so simply having that isn't a good measure.

The easiest way is the same ways we judge art. We can judge it technically on execution and construction, the fundamentals of how it's made. And we can judge it artistically, on how well it achieves the goals it aims for. Does this game evoke the emotions and experiences that it tries to?

I don't think games are as personal as you make out, just as other media like movies, TV and books aren't that personal. Certainly, Breaking Bad may resonate more strongly with some people than others. But great art speaks to fundamental things about humans. Great games (generally) speak to the fundamental desires of play.

Shooters let you play at being a soldier. Uncharted lets you play at being Indiana Jones. A great car game lets you feel like you felt when you were a kid playing with Matchbox toys, or whatever your equivalent is. It lets you feel that you're taking part in something, it lets you feel things that you otherwise wouldn't feel or think. It lets you use your imagination within that world to take part in it, whether that be by embracing the story that the developer has laid out for you or by creating your own story.

GT does these things, but to a limited extent. As far as it's a sandbox for playing with cars, it's quite limited. You have little control over the visual aspect of the cars. You have little control over the scenarios that they're placed in. The scenario that the developer gives you is entirely bland and uninspiring. And you have a bunch of design choices making it difficult for you to just PLAY, and I use the word play there as a child would play. Doing things because you have a crazy idea and it's enjoyable.

This is why I criticise GT5. The things it aims for, it doesn't reach. It tries to provide the experience of working your way up from a slow car to a fast one, but the dodgy economics and leveling makes the experience jarring and difficult. It tries to provide the experience of racing, but the dodgy AI make the experience less than pleasant. It tries to provide the experience of driving on a track, but the inconsistent and unstable graphics give lots of opportunity for immersion to be broken. The severe limitations on being able to create your own events and customising your own cars means that creating your own "story" is very difficult unless your story involves hot lapping.

GT5 doesn't get to the things that it reaches for. GT6 appears to be better, but I still think they're failing by boosting the "stats" of the game without addressing fundamentals.

If you liken it to building a sports car, horsepower sells. Raising the horsepower makes the car at least sound more desirable. But without the other components throughout the car to support that power (chassis, suspension, internal luxuries, whatever) it's not going to be that good to drive. Some people will ignore the shortfalls to get that power, but most people would probably be more pleased if they'd spent some time making a more rounded vehicle.

I notice that while modern American muscle cars still retain a lot of the style and characteristics that made people love them, they now have taken a lot of positive handling and useability aspects from other types of cars. They're more generally appealing.

GT5 is a 60's muscle car. Hugely stylish, and pretty good at it's one thing. But only enthusiasts would own one as a daily driver. GT1 was built in the game equivalent of that time, when all games were like that. That's not the case any more.

Making great gameplay is hard. If it wasn't, we'd have a lot more great games. It doesn't mean it can't be done, or that we should pretend that OK games are anything more than OK.

I was one person who posted that video somewhere - there may have been others.

It's funny that you state that we should judge a game based on its design, i.e. the intentions of the designer, but in another post you don't know what those are for GT? How you judge GT as a result? According to your intentions, that's how - that's personal.

But isn't that just the problem, as I said, this game hasn't been made with you in mind? It can't physically be made for all of us, but the size the game is (financially speaking) means that they have to try. In reality, they can only compromise and half-approach any kind of coverage, like you said. It's a reality, as I've said before, of our finite existence.

I'm not saying it should stay the same, either; I just want it to be my game, not yours, or anyone else's. Obviously I won't ever entertain that as a possibility, and don't actually expect it (it's just a deeply buried selfish inclination, at least according to the cynic in me).

What's happening with a lot of people is that their expectation of what GT should be is at odds of what it actually is. There are two sides to that: either the expectations are unfounded, or the game is somehow inherently "wrong". I don't think GT is anywhere near "broken" enough to be considered a bad game, so it can't be considered mechanically wrong. What does that leave? The personal aspect - and I mean aspect.


If the not-Standards go, I'll accept it. I'll be disappointed, but I'd know that that's because I held the wrong expectations - honestly I didn't expect them to remain in GT6, but the Premium car count didn't balloon as much as I expected, so so much for expecting anything!

 

[Quakebass]

I can take a video of some sub par textures in every game.. sub par models , sub par etc etc..
And why has this thread become an argument as to why standards exist?

I'm not arguing why they exist, I know why they exist, my point was that their existence is taking away from the game. It's alright if there's a quality difference, but not to the level that PD is going at it. You can not have content from the past generation on the current gen, especially when the next gen is on the horizon… Or rather, has already been launched.

Forza has quality differences with it's AutoVista mode - but it isn't a generational gap like GT.

 

[Dynamite_Dave]

If anything that first shot only confirms one of the songs to be included in the game.

But yeah, still early to judge. But at least all cars will be under the same category this time around. Which means we'll see "new" cars in the dealerships.

lol forget the in game songs im putting my own tunes in

 

[Imari]

The goal of GT is to close the gap between virtual and reality.

That is a very complex task and can be acomplished taking many paths. PD have chose their own path and that is what GT is evolving around. There is no optimal path as all of them would require some cuts given the actual technology and time required to develop all the needed features.

Seeing those cuts only in GT when are present in other flavours in every other game in the market is also wrong in all levels.

Could you be more vague?

Close the gap between virtual and reality is marketing guff. It's at best a strategic goal. What are the tactical goals that they will use to achieve this strategic goal.

Even if there's no optimal path, PD have chosen theirs. Presumably for some reason. Nobody pays hundreds of people for years of work without planning pretty carefully what they're going to get as a result.

Also, this is not a versus thread. I'm not comparing GT to any other game on the market. I'm judging GT on it's own merits, by the things it's trying to do.

I am sure Miata, RX-7, and GT-R enthusiasts appreciate the different models available.

As a Miata enthusiast (it's an MX5 over here) who belongs to the local club, goes to track days and works on maintaining his car himself, I can say I don't appreciate the 35 odd Miatas available. There's simply not that many variations in real life. There's a number of different trim levels and special editions, but there are few options that weren't available on every single car. There are far less than 20 truly unique models.

They still don't have a Roadster Turbo/Mazdaspeed/SE, because it was released in 2004. It's simply an NB with a turbocharged engine, some fancy wheels and a few trim bits. And there's also a number of legitimately unique semi-official modifications like the M2s and the SPs that are not in the game, and could be added with little effort.

It's funny that you state that we should judge a game based on its design, i.e. the intentions of the designer, but in another post you don't know what those are for GT? How you judge GT as a result? According to your intentions, that's how - that's personal.

If the intentions of the designer are not obvious, they're not doing a good job of design.

And clearly you don't understand what it is to view a work critically. It's one thing to play it and see if I like it. It's another to view it with a critical eye and see if it's "good". You think critics enjoy every movie they watch, every game they play?

Or can no individual make statements about a game, and the only way we can attempt to judge is through Metacritic and friends?

 

[Griffith500]

...

If the intentions of the designer are not obvious, they're not doing a good job of design.

And clearly you don't understand what it is to view a work critically. It's one thing to play it and see if I like it. It's another to view it with a critical eye and see if it's "good". You think critics enjoy every movie they watch, every game they play?

Or can no individual make statements about a game, and the only way we can attempt to judge is through Metacritic and friends?

That's not actually true at all, especially, but not only, if the point of the design is to obfuscate the process itself.

And you're not viewing this with a "critical eye", because, unlike the designer, you have to lay down the framework you're working within, and it has to make sense in respect of the thing that you're criticising - no point assessing its ability to give an accurate impression of what it's like to be an F1 driver (or a toaster), because that is something that GT is obviously not meant to do. Otherwise, it's no different from any other opinion, or review, even - don't over-aggrandise your viewpoint based on some supposed sense of objectivity (which, granted, many "critics" actually do - see also the generally incestuous and conservative nature of art circles.)

You haven't established that framework beyond some assumptions about what GT's intentions are, which are largely conflicting (at least competing) owing to the broad nature of its target market. Maybe it intends not to master those things you lament GT falling short on, simply out of pragmatism. Maybe not.

No idea what metacritic has to to with it; if anything, it's the opposite of what I'm getting at (the universe is beige). If you want to know if a game is any good for you, though, you could easily ask someone who thinks like you do, expects the same things as you do and see what they think? Alternatively, you could find someone who thinks very differently from you (but in a way that you can qualify) and try that instead. I have a range of go-to reviewers for different genres for both of those reasons, and is why I prefer (clearly delineated) committee reviews in some cases also.

Games, as interactive, experiential entities, have an extra dimension, one that is much more closely entwined with the inner workings of our "being" (I would say "minds", but that exposes my own preconceptions), that makes them a little harder to probe in the same way other "art forms" have been - give us all time, though.

 

[glassjaw]

This is exactly what FM5 is doing and among its hardcore fans (like myself) it's getting massive backlash. Reviews are starting to call it out on its lack of replay value thanks to the small car list.

So I went on Metacritic...

IGN: "It may be lighter on girth than where we left off last generation, and still lacking much-requested features like night racing and rain, but wrestling a car through some of the world’s most legendary corners at the very limits of adhesion has never looked or felt this good on console."

Game Informer: "This is the most fun I've had racing in a Forza title, and yet it's not the most complete entry in the franchise."

GamesRadar: "With Forza 5, it chose to compromise in certain areas in an attempt to create something unique and fresh. It’s not entirely successful, as the sometimes-negligible improvements to the gameplay can’t quite make up for the sting of losing so many fan-favorite cars and tracks. But what is included is still terrific, and in some cases better than ever."

This is the "massive backlash" you're talking about? Critics saying that despite fewer cars, Forza 5 is still a good or even great game where it counts? Going from 500 to 200 is a noticeable change, nobody's disputing that. But a reduced car roster should never condemn an otherwise great racer, and that's what you're seeing here. Critics understand the challenges of designing a game for a new generation of hardware. Sooner or later, legacy content must be thrown away to maintain a level of consistency and higher quality that people expect from a next-gen title - it's always been true. As it turns out, few critics are saying that the reduced car count has a significant negative impact on the overall experience, and even the ones that gave FM5 a poor score for that reason also cite a repetitive career mode, a reduced number of tracks, and also just a general lack of new or interesting features.

 

[Imari]

Maybe it intends not to master those things you lament GT falling short on, simply out of pragmatism. Maybe not.

Why bother making any critical assessment of the game then, if you can't judge what was intended to be good and bad, and you're not allowed to pass criticism on stuff that was intended to be ****.

No idea what metacritic has to to with it; if anything, it's the opposite of what I'm getting at (the universe is beige). If you want to know if a game is any good for you, though, you could easily ask someone who thinks like you do, expects the same things as you do and see what they think? Alternatively, you could find someone who thinks very differently from you (but in a way that you can qualify) and try that instead. I have a range of go-to reviewers for different genres for both of those reasons, and is why I prefer (clearly delineated) committee reviews in some cases also.

If all criticisms of the game are personal and without value, then the only value is in measuring the perception of the crowd.

I don't believe that's the case, but you seem to think that it's impossible to have any objective view of a game. Hence your preference for reviews where either the reviewer shares the same biases as yourself or the biases are toned down by groupthink.

 

[Griffith500]

Why bother making any critical assessment of the game then, if you can't judge what was intended to be good and bad, and you're not allowed to pass criticism on stuff that was intended to be ****.

That's not what I said.

If all criticisms of the game are personal and without value, then the only value is in measuring the perception of the crowd.

I don't believe that's the case, but you seem to think that it's impossible to have any objective view of a game. Hence your preference for reviews where either the reviewer shares the same biases as yourself or the biases are toned down by groupthink.

No, the only value is in the perception of the individual: you. You're not me, of course, which goes without saying.
For designers, that's not necessarily the case - bigger groups are a potentially bigger financial reward.

And I prefer reviews where the biases contrast with each other, actually. It's much more thought provoking when I go back and throw my own experience into the mix.
EDIT: I mean I often find I agree with each "reviewer" in parts on different things - it's nice to feel that contrast sometimes, and get an idea for the tapestry of experience that each individual carries with them.

There was also that part where I deliberately seek out viewpoints different from my own - I've experienced its power in proper critical assessments in a scientific setting (tediously rigorous), and I'm forever bound to be tethered by the knowledge that there is always another angle, perspective, aspect onto anything that is not concretely defined (which just means everyone agrees on it, more or less, usually out of practical necessity).


The inclusion / retention of the Standards are due to some other metrics of intended functionality (yielding a given "experience") than those you personally expect / prioritise. That doesn't make you wrong, it doesn't make the game wrong - it does (potentially) make the game wrong for you, though, depending on how rigid your expectations are.

 

[Benjinator12]

Sooner or later, legacy content must be thrown away to maintain a level of consistency and higher quality that people expect from a next-gen title - it's always been true.

As it turns out, few critics are saying that the reduced car count has a significant negative impact on the overall experience, and even the ones that gave FM5 a poor score for that reason also cite a repetitive career mode, a reduced number of tracks, and also just a general lack of new or interesting features.

I think it may have been Eurogamer that criticized the campaign's repetitiveness thanks to the lack of tracks... not cars, but content that was cut out for similar reasons, according to the developer.

If legacy content must be thrown out to be a "next-gen" title, why would you complain about GT6, which is current-gen?

If you only had the premiums in GT, there would be quite a few more complaints than keeping the standards around. Who knows, GT7 might only have premiums, and I think that would be acceptable (but those premiums would probably be ported from PS3, would that be "next-gen"?).

 

[TheeFrogmanlego]

This thread has gone WAY OFF TOPIC. The last four pages are nothing but debates.