You make it sound like all a game consists of is fundamentals. The fundamentals are what make the game work. They're necessary for the game to be viewed as part of the genre. But it's all the other stuff that makes a game unique and interesting.
Bread is fundamental to making a sandwich. You can't make a sandwich without bread, or it wouldn't be a sandwich*. But it's what's in the middle that makes the sandwich interesting and exciting.
I'm sorry, but for a racing game the AI is bread. It's not racing if there's no one to race against. The obvious exception being if you do an iRacing and go purely online, but GT doesn't seem to be going that way.
*If anyone brings up that heart-attack-in-three-easy-bites THING that KFC made with bacon and cheese between to bits of chicken, I will punt a puppy.
I'm not sure if we're talking at crossed purposes here, but it's obvious that AI is "bread" and I never said otherwise. I also get that finishing flourishes etc. can create two different games born from the same "fundamentals". The problem is that if you make everything so prescriptive, as the mainstream tends to be, then you lose most of the variety in the fundamentals and a lot of it in the flourishes. To be clear, there is plenty of room for improvement in AI in games as a whole, never mind within certain genre boundaries, real or imagined - what use is it to copy something else (meet expectations based on other games in the "genre") when what's really needed is innovation?
It's these "expectations" that are the main driving force both for change and for stagnation, weirdly - I mean, we can all imagine our perfect game, and this shapes our expectations, too, but we are still only experiential, so our imaginings are dictated by past games, and everything else.
This idea that a game belonging to a certain "genre" (i.e. ticking off the boxes) has to have certain things executed in a certain way is damaging, creatively speaking. It's only really useful in terms of classification, but that's only turned out to be a mess when new things just keep appearing every now and then: what genre is Minecraft, aside from Minecraft-like? What about Monaco, Ico, Dark Souls, Deus Ex, Elite etc.
This is why a proper review is really important, too, so you know what a game is about without having to rely too heavily on prejudices based on genre tags. They're nice short-cuts, but they're too prescriptive.
Basically, some sandwiches are more popular than others, and these are the ones that tend to get made more often, regardless of whether better sandwiches could ever exist - because people can only ask for what they know. I'm inclined to change my mind from time to time, so I'll happily look out for a new favourite sandwich should one come along.
Looking at Machschnel's post, it's clear that GT is "genre-bending" in the same way that my examples above are. It's arguably true that GT is at its best as a "time trial" (although I often remove that aspect, too: for me, it's more of a test drive for different concepts of what cars and driving can be, by trying different cars, or modifying others etc. - oh look, Vision Gran Turismo). What's not clear is whether the "bad" AI is caused by that focus or vice versa. Racing is in our nature, so we're always going to want to do it now and then, of course.
GT suffers, though, for trying to be all things to all people despite its strengths lying elsewhere, but that's simply what's
expected of it.
I blame console gamers' diverse and conflicting expectations as a group, given they coveted the diverse racing games available on PC, when racing games on consoles largely only fitted the "arcade" category (the only sandwiches available).
Then GT released and subsequently offered that tantalising look into "simulation" for consolers, changing expectations, fueling the elitist PC vs. console "wars", driving the faux-realism (it has to
seem realistic, but not be as difficult as that, generally) crusades in PC racing games, killing the perception of a good, fun arcade racer etc. - as well as being revolutionary from a standpoint of structure and scope.
In short:
Or it may not be as simple as that, but clearly GT was a sandwich no one had ever seen before: it came from not following the list, from practically defying expectations. I strongly believe it should keep doing that; there are plenty of games doing the cynical thing and giving us "what we want" - it's nice to have both approaches.
I still want improved AI, just not in any way I've seen before (or even imagined, to some extent), so I'd prefer it if PD didn't use other games as a check list, and did some proper exploration instead.
I suppose, to attempt to keep this constructive for those who don't like walls of text: shouldn't the AI approach our real world experience of racing, i.e. in real vehicles on real tracks, or even just online in games, rather than what other games have done with AI? Some games come close, in parts, in terms of the
impression they give, but, as I've said before, that's not enough for me: it must be genuine.
or corned beef, swiss or cheddar cheese, pickles or hot peppers, Franks Red Hot or mustard or anything else, PD should be able to make a huge range of sandwiches, from the simple and easy to the massive and complex.
