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

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.

And this mode of thought leads directly to political correctness, where nothing is "wrong" and everything is just "different". That's completely useless.

Standard cars are an example where there are positives and negatives, as I initially pointed out. Not everything is so poorly defined. GT5 menus, for example, are just bad.

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

Welcome to internet forums. They're things for debating.
 
And this mode of thought leads directly to political correctness, where nothing is "wrong" and everything is just "different". That's completely useless.

Standard cars are an example where there are positives and negatives, as I initially pointed out. Not everything is so poorly defined. GT5 menus, for example, are just bad.

...

Not really, I don't think my being pleased with the Standards' inclusion impacts on your validity to exist, for instance. It's hardly consequential in that sense - serious business and all that. Recreation is personal, and that's absolutely fine - until your recreation is, I dunno, shooting people for reals, or something.

The menus are a very simple component to any game, in that they're not actually the game (they're in the way of the game, much as the controller is to a degree). It's very easy to evaluate its effectiveness as a result. (EDIT: Then again, if some people get off on the slow loading times in GT5, for whatever reason, then good for them, I guess - they may have to look elsewhere for kicks when GT6 comes out, though)

It's very hard to evaluate the effectiveness of the Standards in creating an enjoyable experience without making assumptions about what is the right way to enjoy the game - what is inherently a more righteous form of recreation, effectively.
 
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"?).
I mean, the same way FM5 is next-gen to FM2, 3, and 4, GT5 and 6 are next-gen to GT3 and 4. But I was simply disputing the idea that Forza is getting critically panned for lacking cars.
 
Wouldn't they only premiumize the cars they have fully tested? They must have much more diverse and accurate entries of specs for their new cars now, so standards (tested almost 10 years ago) would remain incomplete despite eye-candy graphics, which could explain why they wouldn't want to mess only partially with their list.
If it were my decision, I would indeed copy-paste exteriors, but they're not players, they don't see things like we do.
 
I mean, the same way FM5 is next-gen to FM2, 3, and 4, GT5 and 6 are next-gen to GT3 and 4. But I was simply disputing the idea that Forza is getting critically panned for lacking cars.
It got panned because it took away allot of features, retained the same physics as four for the most part. Basically imagine if GT3 had less events than two and had the exact same physics .. its crapper than the last aside from graphics !
 
It got panned because it took away allot of features, retained the same physics as four for the most part. Basically imagine if GT3 had less events than two and had the exact same physics .. its crapper than the last aside from graphics !

I would like to see people when PD decides to retain 200 cars, 14 tracks, remove many features whilst not improving the physics and adding absolutely nothing except for fancy graphics and somewhat better A.I. and brand it as a new game...yet no one bats an eye with the 'other' game...

-Insert joker here-

PD adds a lot of tracks, day and night, weather on all new tracks, a whole lot more customization options, better handling of the paint system, a whole lot better physics, works on the sounds and promises to improve them even more, better A.I., a whole host of new cars that is already bigger than most games' complete car lists, adds a lot of features for online, a course maker that could be the stuff of dreams, revises the whole interface and makes it smooth as butter. But it doesn't include a certain BMW...

and everyone loses their minds!
 
I would like to see people when PD decides to retain 200 cars, 14 tracks, remove many features whilst not improving the physics and adding absolutely nothing except for fancy graphics and somewhat better A.I. and brand it as a new game...yet no one bats an eye with the 'other' game...

-Insert joker here-

PD adds a lot of tracks, day and night, weather on all new tracks, a whole lot more customization options, better handling of the paint system, a whole lot better physics, works on the sounds and promises to improve them even more, better A.I., a whole host of new cars that is already bigger than most games' complete car lists, adds a lot of features for online, a course maker that could be the stuff of dreams, revises the whole interface and makes it smooth as butter. But it doesn't include a certain BMW...

and everyone loses their minds!

I feel like the real problem is PD adding more cars and tracks, but not adding more gameplay and nobody has really seen proof of this better AI...
 
Not more gameplay? Is that a joke?
I think MK2 meant better gameplay ;)

I would like to see people when PD decides to retain 200 cars, 14 tracks, remove many features whilst not improving the physics and adding absolutely nothing except for fancy graphics and somewhat better A.I. and brand it as a new game...yet no one bats an eye with the 'other' game...

-Insert joker here-

PD adds a lot of tracks, day and night, weather on all new tracks, a whole lot more customization options, better handling of the paint system, a whole lot better physics, works on the sounds and promises to improve them even more, better A.I., a whole host of new cars that is already bigger than most games' complete car lists, adds a lot of features for online, a course maker that could be the stuff of dreams, revises the whole interface and makes it smooth as butter. But it doesn't include a certain BMW...

and everyone loses their minds!
For starters the physics of FM5 have been revised along with all car models which are truly next gen as they are fully modeled. Also the new AI system is a small revolution which is innovative and might solve the problem of zombie AI once and for all. The game is basically a taster of a next gen racing game just like GT3 was on PS2, and although the criticism of no day/night cycles and weather is justified, i'm sure T10 will provide that for FM6.

The criticism of GT isn't "they didn't add that BMW", the criticism of PD is that on the one hand they improve physics and track lighting with the day/ night cycles (which also excites me), but then again, just like in GT5, they neglect to update their failed race mode (chase the rabbit), neglect to update their engine sounds (future patch yes yes..), and port over 800 PS2! models again which is frankly unacceptable to many.

So there's a big chance that we will have to play online again if we want to experience good racing with GT6, so we aren't forced to blitz through a field of weirdly selected slower cars to make it to the rabbit before the laps run out.
 
Last edited:
The thing is
I think MK2 meant better gameplay ;)

For starters the physics of FM5 have been revised along with all car models which are truly next gen as they are fully modeled. Also the new AI system is a small revolution which is innovative and might solve the problem of zombie AI once and for all. The game is basically a taster of a next gen racing game just like GT3 was on PS2, and although the criticism of no day/night cycles and weather is justified, i'm sure T10 will provide that for FM6.

The criticism of GT isn't "they didn't add that BMW", the criticism of PD is that on the one hand they improve physics and track lighting with the day/ night cycles (which also excites me), but then again, just like in GT5, they neglect to update their failed race mode (chase the rabbit), neglect to update their engine sounds (future patch yes yes..), and port over 800 PS2! models again which is frankly unacceptable to many.

So there's a big chance that we will have to play online again if we want to experience good racing with GT6, so we aren't forced to blitz through a field of weirdly selected slower cars to make it to the rabbit before the laps run out.

Come on man, every thread I enter I see you and your ranting about every freaking aspect of the game. I am not even going to notice the FM vs GT flame you tend to start.

The funny thing is, I am SURE, you didn't even play F5 or GT6 yet, so what the hell with the whole this is the real next gen, and this one just adds cars and tracks but nothing else.

I agree with a lot of points, especially about being PD ignorant regarding sounds, gameplay mechanics, AI and so on, but saying that they are stuck? I am not sure about that.

GPS, Course maker, Seasonals, Weather/Time - these features are kind of new. Not to mention that a 'next-gen other game 5' doesn't even have those functions despite being NEXT-GEN (except for the seasonals maybe).

So mister dog, that's just my opinion as a lurker here. Your posts are kind of depressing.
 
I think MK2 meant better gameplay ;)

For starters the physics of FM5 have been revised along with all car models which are truly next gen as they are fully modeled. Also the new AI system is a small revolution which is innovative and might solve the problem of zombie AI once and for all. The game is basically a taster of a next gen racing game just like GT3 was on PS2, and although the criticism of no day/night cycles and weather is justified, i'm sure T10 will provide that for FM6.

The criticism of GT isn't "they didn't add that BMW", the criticism of PD is that on the one hand they improve physics and track lighting with the day/ night cycles (which also excites me), but then again, just like in GT5, they neglect to update their failed race mode (chase the rabbit), neglect to update their engine sounds (future patch yes yes..), and port over 800 PS2! models again which is frankly unacceptable to many.

So there's a big chance that we will have to play online again if we want to experience good racing with GT6, so we aren't forced to blitz through a field of weirdly selected slower cars to make it to the rabbit before the laps run out.
More like FM2 was on x360. An hd evolution of their previous game but in a better hardware. GT3 was a "wow" game at the time and the reviews reflect that, FM5 impact is not even close. This time the gap between the previous and new generation is not as impressive. Genre has evolved in these years and finally the lack of the most demanded features is affecting the Forza series.

The new AI is also no revolution, it has been critized because don't provide quality racing, not sim racing but an arcade behaviour, like a typical online room. Is still remains to be seen if that will change in the future with more data players stored, but now that is the promised FM5 AI.
 
Come on man, every thread I enter I see you and your ranting about every freaking aspect of the game. I am not even going to notice the FM vs GT flame you tend to start.
I am quoting a post mentioning the differences between GT and FM, so i do not see where i am trying to "start a flame war"...

The funny thing is, I am SURE, you didn't even play F5 or GT6 yet, so what the hell with the whole this is the real next gen, and this one just adds cars and tracks but nothing else.

I agree with a lot of points, especially about being PD ignorant regarding sounds, gameplay mechanics, AI and so on, but saying that they are stuck? I am not sure about that.

GPS, Course maker, Seasonals, Weather/Time - these features are kind of new. Not to mention that a 'next-gen other game 5' doesn't even have those functions despite being NEXT-GEN (except for the seasonals maybe).

So mister dog, that's just my opinion as a lurker here. Your posts are kind of depressing.
Hey it's not all bad tough :dopey:

And i'm just ranting about the aspects worth ranting about, getting a little worked up yes i have to admit, but that's because i'm a very passionate man ;)

The new AI is also no revolution, it has been critized because don't provide quality racing, not sim racing but an arcade behaviour, like a typical online room. Is still remains to be seen if that will change in the future with more data players stored, but now that is the promised FM5 AI.
Apparently there are 7 types of drivatars, so if all is implemented well your opponents will always fit your racing style and provide you with a challenge. Remains to be seen if it will be as functional as it sounds, but if it does one can say this is a small revolution.
 
Last edited:
Why am I hearing "GT6 doesn't add more to the gameplay"? Seriously? It sure as hell does add more to it by adding "Course maker with GPS, Day and Night cycle and Weather". Talk about looking for stuff to complain about... 👎
Which is all compromised by having crap racing, and that's what the gameplay is basically about in a racing game no?
 
Which is all compromised by having crap racing, and that's what the gameplay is basically about in a racing game no?
Umm. I'm confused. Crap racing? How? Doesn't Le Mans not race through day to night, and it may possibly rain? How is that crap racing?
 
I am not being personal, mate, that's just my observation. For one thing, this thread is called 'First in game look at standards'. The only thing I am hoping to see here, when I enter is a pic of standard car or a theory or discussion about them.

As for the FM vs GT, I had to mention those things, cause as I said, bashing PD and saying that competition doing everything better is just not true. And let's be honest here - this is not the only thread where this subject is touched by you. Just try to leave it in the FM vs GT thread, shall we?

Which is all compromised by having crap racing, and that's what the gameplay is basically about in a racing game no?

ABSOLUTELY not. GT is ultimately a driving simulator. driving /= racing.
To be honest, I prefer time attack, tuning and driving a variety of cars on all of tracks. So for me, weather, more cars and tracks, tuning features, course maker (that's a big one) is a gameplay. And.... Do I have to mention PHYSICS??

I was doing pretty much the same thing on the other game. And the 'rivals' mode is one of the best things which had ever happened in the racing gaming and I really hope we will see it in GT series too.

EDIT: To be totally clear, racing is also a very big part of the game and there is no excuse for PD to ignore AI and other features which add the immersion and feel of a good racing session.
 
ABSOLUTELY not. GT is ultimately a driving simulator. driving /= racing.

Driving is not racing but racing is driving. Not sure how a game about you against other cars fighting for first position to earn rewards is not a racing game, no matter how badly implemented it is. Might as well not bother with the career mode if it's not a racing game, right?
 
Driving is not racing but racing is driving. Not sure how a game about you against other cars fighting for first position to earn rewards is not a racing game, no matter how badly implemented it is. Might as well not bother with the career mode if it's not a racing game, right?

You are totally right. I edited my post and racing IS a very big part of the game. However it's not the only one. What I am trying to say, that despite it is really inexcusable for PD to ignore AI (and generally racing aspect), but we can't say that the game is 5/10 just because of that one big aspect.

I personally don't like to generalize everything, so that's just how I like to think :)
 
You are totally right. I edited my post and racing IS a very big part of the game. However it's not the only one. What I am trying to say, that despite it is really inexcusable for PD to ignore AI (and generally racing aspect), but we can't say that the game is 5/10 just because of that one big aspect.

I personally don't like to generalize everything, so that's just how I like to think :)

If that's what you were trying to say, I agree. It's certainly not the only part of the game that would be enough to single-handedly ruin the entire experience.
 
Umm. I'm confused. Crap racing? How? Doesn't Le Mans not race through day to night, and it may possibly rain? How is that crap racing?
19789999.jpg
 
In order to race you must drive, but you are not necessarily always racing when driving a car, you could be just cruising or drifting, ignoring others position and enjoying the driving. When you try to get in front and to win, that's when you are racing. Simple logic. Driving simulator in general simply covers all aspect of driving as a sport and recreation in GT, racing, drifting, rallying, time trial ( race against time ), cruising ( online ), drag ( standing and rolling start online ). I spent a lot of time ( 100% ) in GT5 driving my car, I enjoy the simulation of driving, when I am cruising, test/tune, drifting, drag or plain simple racing against time or other car ( AI/real drive ).
 
i-cannot-brain-today-i-has-the-dumb-cat.jpg


alrighty then... this thread went WAY off of a pixelized standard and then showing newer polished up cars.. Nor sure where it has gone but I aint gonna read two kid's arguments over something which Obama could even fix.

Some of us need to take a look at an actual simulator, before we start calling GT a sim. I will say however, It is the BEST and most closest game for a console that we have for driving/racing. But lets take a look at something else as to what a sim is.

"Physical simulation refers to simulation in which physical objects are substituted for the real thing (some circles[4] use the term for computer simulations modelling selected laws of physics, but this article doesn't). These physical objects are often chosen because they are smaller or cheaper than the actual object or system.

Interactive simulation is a special kind of physical simulation, often referred to as a human in the loop simulation, in which physical simulations include human operators, such as in a flight simulator or a driving simulator."

That came from Wiki. So what that means between the two, is what GT6 is, along with some of 5. GT6 shows an almost entirely new physics engine made to represent reality. So that's Physical sim checked. Then obviously, we people are the controllers. We control the cars in the game no different than we would in the actual seat of our cars.

Now the ambiguity starts. We can go off from this in many directions because that was probably the most vague point I've ever made on these forums. What I would like to see from consoles, is the direct association with their community. More specifically, I want to be able to add things to the game to enhance it from my perspective. There is this wonderful thing on the internet called freeware. It's basically a DLC for whatever game/app/whatever for free that you install yourself. Then you have this magical thing called payware. It's mostly a more higher quality freeware download that you pay for. This is where I think the GT community can run wild. Let devs of their own skill add their own touch to the game, in which it would have to abide by GT community guidlines (because I dont want a gentlemen sausage on wheels) and people could download from it on a market place within the game straight to their ps3 (or if gt6 carries over to the ps4).

PD started (or attempted) to do an interesting feature with photostream on computers from anywhere around the world. If they made a more complex site with a search engine where files could be uploaded where they could be sent to the GT market place where people can download, that's great. Let PD spend time on their high quality projects like tracks and whatnot, but let the community help you.

The only thing that can go bad with this, is that PD will take a break for a day, then a week, then a year. The game goes stale as only the community is uploading while the devs basically look down and say "well it seems they have this under control." That's what I dont want to see..

fin
 
I can sympathize with those people who are disturbed by having 70-80% of cars HD versions from the previous generation. What bothers me the most is not so much the exterior quality of the two but the fact that standards don't have a decent interior view because I always race with interior view. It's just annoying having to switch and play with bumper cam or 3rd person view when driving a standard.
The black interiors just don't help. You don't feel as if you're immersed in the experience. Almost like there's a disconnect between the wheels and the interior.

Yet it also says The Real Driving Simulator on the box.

Therefore, the producers of the game consider it to be a driving game, not a racing game.

With all due respect, this is just quibbling over semantics. You don't 'drive' your way to victory in GT, you 'race' your way to victory. If it were a 'driving simulator' why are all the A-spec races set up in such a way that you are rewarded for finishing in a higher position? Why are almost 100% of tracks race tracks?
'Driving' a car means obeying speed limits, having a nice Sunday drive, doing a turn in the road, left reverse, parallel park, etc. I don't see much of that taking place in GT, unless you do a time trial and simply just cruise around for the fun of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right, what I meant is that the Standard cars are not justified by the "driving sim" argument.

A) they don't have cockpit views
B) they have the most generic sound samples
C) damage is even more limited
D) physics are generic too

So if GT is a "driving sim" all aspects about driving should be well represented, people like to argue that having duplicates and rather bizarre cars is justified because the goal is to try them all and feel the differences between them... False, the points above prove that the cars are just there to boost the numbers.

The problem with GT's car list is that not only a minority of cars is "well" represented but the amount of interesting cars is terrible, take SHIFT 2 car list (180-220) I've never seen any complaints about the game's car or track list and the reason is because they know what the majority of people want to drive and which locations they want to do so.

Another reason for that is the customization, in S2U you can "RM" (Works convert) every single car in the game, this instantly doubles the car list and since you can create your own liveries and decide how much further you want to tune these cars, the posibilities are almost unlimited. PD should be doing this instead of restricting us to their TC/RM models.

You don't need 1200 cars to please everyone, a balanced 250 to 300 car list would be enough.
 
Back