Okay, personal take and I’m sure many have been introduced to driving the same.
I started learning to drive, in The Bronx, at 14. My Mother would rent cars when we visited relatives in Coram, NY(Long Island). Dead end street and my Mother would let me drive one Way, make a u-turn and drive the other way. Repeating a few times.
Learned to drive stick by my brother at his high school campus. Saturdays, when no one were around. It does work like this in the real world. Whether in a paddock on a farm or on an empty street.
What I posted has relevance, because PD are simulating the driving like the real world. You accelerate, brake and Turn the wheel. The GT6 tutorial I posted, even advises players to try following the guide line during the actual tutorial.
The difference between learning to drive on an empty street and learning to drive in games is that in real life your biggest concern is to not wreck the car, and this circumstance guides most of your first actions with a priority on taking care. That’s not a factor in games, so in a game you’re more likely to do things wrong from the get go. This can be detrimental for some people, as it can quickly lead to decisive frustration. I briefly covered this angle in my first reply to you, and how the purpose of educational lessons have the same value in video games as in reality.
But in GT, the licence tests are required to advance in the game. You’d need a certain licence, to play various parts of the game. To unlock that section.
They weren’t always. In GT5 and GT6 they were completely optional, if I remember correctly. This might change in GT7. Anyway, I always liked how the licence tests in the oldest GT games were obligatory in order to participate in campaign races at different levels. It really added a rewarding element to the progression structure.
I did, because it's the very way you worded things. Starting the sentence like that and then saying it's unwarranted is doing exactly that. Shouldn't be hard to understand that you're not one to decide that.
I have my own opinion and I try to share it as convincingly as possible. People are free to decide for themselves whether they agree or disagree, so I’m not really “deciding” what others can think about the license tests. I respect different opinions, but this doesn’t mean I cannot say why I think they’re wrong. It’s the nature of discussion.
Unwarranted, unnecessary. There's little difference. If you're done with the discussion that's one, thing - just remove yourself - However, just because of that isn't a reason enough to claim it's unwarranted.
It’s my
opinion that the criticism is unwarranted. You’re certainly not in a position where you can just ask people to leave.
I'm glad to hear you're ok with them. Some people aren't though.
Yes, that much is obvious by now.
I'm not asking for it to interrupt the game, I've elaborated on a later post on the idea.
I fail to see how it can be implemented effectively without getting in your way. But like I said, fair enough if that’s what you prefer.
I don't really like it, its not helpful to me, or find it necessary for players like myself. I for one would rather skip it entirely. Big deal? It's as if you're not responding to things I'm actually saying and instead are pretending that I'm trying to get it removed outright. Improving the system isn't going to detract from that ignorant little kid.
If only someone had come up with a solution that seems better. So far I’ve only read alternative solutions that are different, but not without their own problems.
Sounds like an extremely similar system is already in ACC, or close enough to it. If it's been started it can be improved, and if such a small developer can get this going there's no reason in my mind why a huge one like PD can't. It sounds plenty realistic to me. Them not using better programing is one of the reasons people want things improved, thanks for pointing that out.
Mind pointing out what exactly is unrealistic about it or was that just a vague pass? It's like you're actively trying to fight against valid improvement with nothing but "I want something basic and tedious" and nothing more. All wild guesses on your part.
I understand that the technology to do it exists. I just don’t see PD implementing something like this, which you justifiably can blame them for. They may be bigger and better funded studio, but their capacity has only ever shined through in some specific areas. Feature implementation hasn’t been one of those areas. Just look how barebones the B Spec mode was over the years.
For someone who hates and talks down massive quote trains, you sure do have a knack to do it it quite often.
I only hate quote trains when they turn into derailments making the forum less readable for people in general. Not the case here, because we still seem to be on topic.
Didn't you just chastise
@Imari and now you're going to do things you yourself complained that others similarly did to you
He resorted to insults although I made no deliberate effort to offend him. Please elaborate how I did that here.
I really don't understand this attitude on a discussion forum. If you're not interested, ignore it. Not every discussion is going to interest you.
In this case it might have something to do with how long it has been going on with regards to how you repeatedly show total diregard for the fair points people haved raised to defend the license tests. More than once I have asked you to elaborate why you think the license tests are useless but you avoid these questions with vagueness, and then proceed with your own critical agenda.
Why have you shifted to talking about GT as a whole? We were talking about license tests specifically.
Because I think it’s appropriate. If you want to compare to car or television advancements on the whole, then it’s only logical to measure it against GT on a similar scale.
You said they aren't broken so don't need fixing, I gave you examples of things that also weren't broken but got improved. I could list millions of things fitting that description. So again, why shouldn't they evolve just because you don't think they're broken?
And you’re blaming people for not reading the nuances of your posts? I haven’t said the license tests shouldn’t evolve. I said the educational aspect of the game works in its current form, and that your suggested solutions will only bring different problems with them - mainly the disadvantages of over-compressed tutorials.
Also it's funny to suggest GT has evolved at the same rate as those things. Graphics and physics might have, but every GT game bar Sport is practically the same game in terms of structure and gameplay. It's what I take issue with, in case you haven't noticed.
Not really that funny. Cars and televisions are fundamentally still the same things as well. The technological advancements in those industries are comparable to the advancements GT has made over the years.
I share the frustration that GT is stuck with some flawed design choices, but I can forgive the license tests until someone comes up with a better idea. So far I’d say no one has, just different ideas. It’s a balancing act, and you also don’t want to alter the core vision of the game too much after 25 years of relative success.
