Gran Turismo 7: Latest news and discussion thread

[Nielsen]

I know what I experience when posting here, thanks. I clearly said it wasn't everybody but I've been around here long enough to know that what I said is accurate, I wouldn't have said it otherwise. I've criticised the copy/paste game design multiple times, I'm shot down every time by multiple people saying it's fine and what they want. Just search my posts for Sunday Cup if you don't believe me, people never like the idea of getting rid of that, irrespective of what alternative I suggest. Then here you are, shooting down any suggestion of changing license tests.

Some are always bound to disagree quite strongly when changing an old working formula like the license tests, and this will obviously shine through in their response.

What you think is a priority or how likely PD are to actually change anything is irrelevant.

Yes.

You clearly are strongly in the corner of keeping them as-is. Otherwise this discussion wouldn't have happened, you would have just said "I agree they should be improved, but I don't think it's a priority" and pages of discussion wouldn't have happened.

The discussion started way before I joined it…

No I wasn’t. I was suggesting that if these seems like such a problem to talk about it as you’re making it out to be, then just remove yourself from the equation.

What was this then?

The thing about that, is that you don't get to decide when enough is enough or what warrants discussions between people being bothered by.

Has “shut up” written all over it.

Again, it’s your interpretation of what I said that makes it come across to you in that particular way. You failed to understand the intention of what was being said. I could probably repeat it a hundred times over, and you still wouldn’t understand. I think I’ve already explained it three times.

I never took it as a counter arguement. You said you haven’t seen someone come up with any solution and I said it’s because you keep denying everything outright because you didn’t think PD is capable to do the idea you didn’t even disagree with being bad. You initially labeled it as improbable because you doubted their capabilities in that area. I don’t doubt their abilities because like it’s been mentioned plenty of times, a small dev atleast got going what you denied initially. So I have faith that PD should at least be capable to get it going too.

Like Samus just said, it was an irrelevant remark within the topic of the discussion. It was not related to my argument on why PD shouldn’t adopt any of the suggested approaches over the license tests. Yet you still treat it like it was. What you said there basically confirmed it again.

I’ve never done such thing, it’s more likely your frustration with this continuing that’s causing you to feel such a way.

You’re actually doing it right now. Clutter the topic with obfuscation, and then you’ll blame me when I eventually decide to opt out of the theatrics.

It was a question that made absolutely no sense to use in a discussion when I’ve never been the one to actually say or imply that in the first place. That is not something to apply to me, and if you have problems with that notion, you should take it up with the person that actually said it to you instead of trying to make people the bad guy. It’s an outright lie to imply that, or completely dishonest at best.

So what is it you actually mean to imply when you mock someone’s decision to leave the trivial discussions you always steer toward?

Took the victim from the get go? That makes no sense because I’m not the one pretending someone is attacking me personally.

From the get go you addressed me like I’m the bad person. You wouldn’t do that if you weren’t annoyed by my presence. Then I point out why I think you’re the one being annoying, and then I’m suddenly wrong for taking issue with that. Hypocrisy at its finest.

You are. That’s why you tried to use that dishonest remark as a scapegoat to the conversation. I haven’t pointed out any behavioral flaws, in fact, you’re the one that’s making it less and less about the game at this point trying to push that point as hard as you can. I suggest you go back and re-read all the posts I’ve made to you thoroughly because the absolute vast majority of what I’ve been posting has actually been about the game and this license discussion, the more you posted the less you talked about the game and actually decided to talk about me as a person instead. The only time I’ve even mentioned something remotely close, was when I initially posted to you about how you’re not in a place to call it unnecessary. Thats it, and if you can’t see and understand that, than you’re lying to yourself and everyone else saying things like that. You’ve made it about “psychology”, you’re derailing this by doing the exact thing you’re trying to label other people doing

Don’t project that responsibility onto me. Discussion was on topic until you shared your wisdom about how I’m supposed to articulate things and behave, like always.

 

[CoopR_26]

oh my god, how is this debate still going on. The last few pages are filled with the same arguments

 

[ShiftingGears]

Speaking of trees, another problem with GT Sport is that for all the eye candy and the amount PD markets on graphics, a lot of tracks just look drab. Dragon Trail Gardens in particular looks average and the background seems to attempt to serve as a distraction but it doesnt work.

 

[05XR8]

Hey, hey whooooa. Don’t bag my DTG.

I love the run into T1. Reminds me of Eastern Creek. Just with a mountain in the background. The run down to Seaside hairpin, I personally like looking at ocean views. Think that’s why I like Monaco for its scenery. Can’t see much of it while racing, but looks nice in replays. It makes the track appear more open. Where the run out of the Four Brothers, is in a tunnel & trench.

I read many don’t like DTG because it may not flow for them, which isn’t ideal for those players. I love it, partly because of it’s equalising factor. I’m not a fast player, but that track keeps me competitive. One of my most used tracks and my favourite of PD’s Original Circuits. Definitely biased much.

I don’t mind the fear & loathing of DTG. Party on!

 

[o000o]

Well that's the problem a lot of the time on this forum. Whenever anyone says they think something about GT is flawed, or they just suggest new ways to do things, they get shouted down by people who are adamant that no, everything is fine, you can't touch the GT formula. I'm not alone in suggesting wholesale changes or enhancements to various areas of the game, the career mode primarily, and people say "Nope, I want 10,000 credits to buy a car and enter the Sunday Cup. That's Gran Turismo, you can't change it".

It's weird really, I've never known any other game series where so many fans are determined for the game to remain exactly the same every single iteration. It's certainly not everyone, but there is a large amount of people. I even saw someone the other day suggesting they add the soundtracks from old games to GT7, so even that could be the same.

I know nostalgia is a powerful drug but it's hella powerful around Gran Turismo it seems.

I don't want to silence criticism (because I'm against double standard, and I'd agree against the daft ones like AI) but why people want to gain the rights to criticize and have others understand them without being attacked personally, but for the opposite end, it's ok to talk down the views of people who'd tolerate more of GT's identity (not flaws like AI, but stuff like old course, soundtrack, or such), and that they're not worth for trying to understand over?

Also you were replying to someone who'd want for the Licenses to stay as what it is.

This is the biggest issue in general. Forgetting that by this point, Gran Turismo has been, effectively, the same game since at minimum GT4, and probably earlier too, with only GTS being the differentiating example. Hell, if I may propose a somewhat controversial opinion: the best GT game has already been made, and it was made a decade ago. It also wasn't even a GT game: it was Forza Motorsport 4. If GT was going to look at concepts and ideas to swipe from, there would be a good place to start.

But then you get the dishonest actors who think that GT being compared to any game (but especially that racing game from the Xbox brand like we're still in the pissing matches of 2005, or 2011) is a cardinal sin, or stick their fingers in their ears and try to point out sales or whatever. Yeah, GT sells well, but like, how many of those sales are from people who don't care for racing games, or are simply using GT as a graphical showcase, which seems to be what Polyphony are focusing on more often then the cacophonous chorus of gameplay problems that have plagued the series for a long while now.

GT was a sort of laughing stock at that era, it's probably already generally known that Forza Motorsport outclassed it in that era in a good number of aspects, instead of being controversial (standing up for GT would be more controversial... in fanbase debates). Though now, even iirc the Forza Motorsport fans now also long for a new Forza that resembles FM4.

Like, at what point does Polyphony wake up and change things wholesale, like they've needed to? At what point do the fans realize the changes that need to be made? Like you said, nostalgia is a powerful thing, but GT seems to have it incredibly bad. Almost as bad as NFS by this point, and that series is actively stifled by people who fall on two opposite camps and basically want their type of game to be made and repeated forever.

NFS was an opposite example I think, that it changes itself several times (and has divided fanbase for those era), like between the old school one (with wide landscape and exotic supercars), tuning era (Underground, etc.), Burnout-like era (Hot Pursuit 2010, etc.), etc. The latest one seems to follow the tuning one, but yeah NFS constantly changes, and yeah the changes aren't met with complete positivity too. NFS fanbase displays an example of nostalgia being a powerful drug too, seen in the reception of Most Wanted 2012.

Speaking of trees, another problem with GT Sport is that for all the eye candy and the amount PD markets on graphics, a lot of tracks just look drab. Dragon Trail Gardens in particular looks average and the background seems to attempt to serve as a distraction but it doesnt work.

And if they take into account for environment graphics like that they'd be still wrong for focusing on "irrelevant" stuff? There are debates about the dam in High Speed Ring.

 

[NotThePrez]

Yes, GT6 did that didn't it. Even paused the game to tell you to brake and turn coming up, IIRC. That is a far more intuitive way to teach people to brake for corners, and as I said, pretty much what a real performance driving/racing instructor would do. Although I think they should have used a more beginner friendly track than Brands Hatch. Paddock Hill is not the best corner to throw people into.

In fact for a lot of the stale license tests they suffer this same flaw, they give you a text instruction what to do on the menu but that's it, once you're on the track if you forgot what it said, or didn't even see it, you've no instruction. You have to go back to the menu, take it in, then back to the track. If you're a beginner you might not even understand some of the terms.

So yes, teaching people certain techniques is far better done live on track, with a virtual instructor IMO. That same virtual instructor should be telling you where you went wrong, that's how you learn quickly. Sure, you might eventually work it out yourself but it's much faster if someone is telling you "OK, so you lifted off mid corner there which unsettled the car". A text instruction at the start is never going to give you that feedback.

I know this post is a few days old, but as someone who is currently going through the old games' license test (gilded all of GT2 and "finished" GT3, currently jumping between GT1 & GT4), I would honestly love this. The most frustrating thing about a lot of the older games' license tests is that at a certain point it becomes incredibly difficult to see where you're losing time, which is especially frustrating if you're on the cusp of getting gold, but have no idea how to make up time (GT2's IC-4 springs to mind). With the PS1 games in particular, a lot of them also required you to drive in a way that is completely counter-intuitive to normal race driving (pretty much all but 2 of GT1's A-Class tests require you to purposely slide the car to keep up speed, for example), which is annoying in of itself if you understand basic racecraft, requires a little bit of luck to get the car to behave the way you (don't) want it to, and has the possibility of teaching bad driving habits. Having an AI teacher analyzing your lap data and giving recommendations would be really neat, and would be a much more personal way to show players how to improve their driving.

When it comes to previous games' license systems, I personally think that GT5's was the best. They weren't mandatory, and were there moreso as bonus content to help players refine their driving if they so choose. Bonus cars were still present too, so there was still an incentive to give them a go. GT6 had it where they were made mandatory, but there were fewer tests and, with the exception of the Veyron S-license test, they weren't particularly difficult if you were a competent driver. The licenses were also unlocked as you progressed through the career, so it felt like a way of introducing and preparing you for the next stage of racing, rather than as a mandatory, tedious side-task to unlock parts of the game (even though they did kinda do that).

I think my ideal license structure in GT7 would be something like this:

1. GT6-style tutorial where you get a lap around a track in a basic car, but the game pauses at certain points to show you the basics of how to drive.
2. NFS Shift style-quick race afterwards, and from that the game recommends difficulty and assist settings, with the possibility of giving you a grade that allows you to skip certain licenses (you'd still need to do the tests to get the prize cars tied to them).
3. Licenses are there as an optional side mission. As you rank up, higher difficulty licenses are unlocked, and while the game recommends them to you, they're not required to enter races, but moreso act as a visual icon of the difficulty of a race or tournament. The tests present are relevant to the type of racing that corresponds with the license (i.e., having a few runs showing the behaviour of a GT500 car in IA for the Super GT tournament). Still keep bonus cars, 100% status and/or other prizes tied to licenses, so that there's still some incentive to complete them.

This makes it so that license tests are still there, and have some form of value, but don't hold the player back per se from accessing parts of the game. Players can actively learn how to improve their racecraft, while still having some incentive for longtime players and/or completionists.

 

[CoopR_26]

I know this post is a few days old, but as someone who is currently going through the old games' license test (gilded all of GT2 and "finished" GT3, currently jumping between GT1 & GT4), I would honestly love this. The most frustrating thing about a lot of the older games' license tests is that at a certain point it becomes incredibly difficult to see where you're losing time, which is especially frustrating if you're on the cusp of getting gold, but have no idea how to make up time (GT2's IC-4 springs to mind). With the PS1 games in particular, a lot of them also required you to drive in a way that is completely counter-intuitive to normal race driving (pretty much all but 2 of GT1's A-Class tests require you to purposely slide the car to keep up speed, for example), which is annoying in of itself if you understand basic racecraft, requires a little bit of luck to get the car to behave the way you (don't) want it to, and has the possibility of teaching bad driving habits. Having an AI teacher analyzing your lap data and giving recommendations would be really neat, and would be a much more personal way to show players how to improve their driving.

When it comes to previous games' license systems, I personally think that GT5's was the best. They weren't mandatory, and were there moreso as bonus content to help players refine their driving if they so choose. Bonus cars were still present too, so there was still an incentive to give them a go. GT6 had it where they were made mandatory, but there were fewer tests and, with the exception of the Veyron S-license test, they weren't particularly difficult if you were a competent driver. The licenses were also unlocked as you progressed through the career, so it felt like a way of introducing and preparing you for the next stage of racing, rather than as a mandatory, tedious side-task to unlock parts of the game (even though they did kinda do that).

I think my ideal license structure in GT7 would be something like this:

1. GT6-style tutorial where you get a lap around a track in a basic car, but the game pauses at certain points to show you the basics of how to drive.
2. NFS Shift style-quick race afterwards, and from that the game recommends difficulty and assist settings, with the possibility of giving you a grade that allows you to skip certain licenses (you'd still need to do the tests to get the prize cars tied to them).
3. Licenses are there as an optional side mission. As you rank up, higher difficulty licenses are unlocked, and while the game recommends them to you, they're not required to enter races, but moreso act as a visual icon of the difficulty of a race or tournament. The tests present are relevant to the type of racing that corresponds with the license (i.e., having a few runs showing the behaviour of a GT500 car in IA for the Super GT tournament). Still keep bonus cars, 100% status and/or other prizes tied to licenses, so that there's still some incentive to complete them.

This makes it so that license tests are still there, and have some form of value, but don't hold the player back per se from accessing parts of the game. Players can actively learn how to improve their racecraft, while still having some incentive for longtime players and/or completionists.

Souds like a really good system. In my opinion, PD shouldn't put its focus on the license tests. Their primary focus should be gameplay, as it is a racing game. Most (experienced) players will just rush through the licenses and never touch it again. I understand that it gets repetetive after 25 years, but I also understand PD for not changing something that works good enough. Their focus is elsewhere and I like it that way. Where their primary focus is now, is another question.

 

[ArR29]

I don't want to silence criticism (because I'm against double standard, and I'd agree against the daft ones like AI) but why people want to gain the rights to criticize and have others understand them without being attacked personally, but for the opposite end, it's ok to talk down the views of people who'd tolerate more of GT's identity (not flaws like AI, but stuff like old course, soundtrack, or such), and that they're not worth for trying to understand over?

Also you were replying to someone who'd want for the Licenses to stay as what it is.


GT was a sort of laughing stock at that era, it's probably already generally known that Forza Motorsport outclassed it in that era in a good number of aspects, instead of being controversial (standing up for GT would be more controversial... in fanbase debates). Though now, even iirc the Forza Motorsport fans now also long for a new Forza that resembles FM4.

NFS was an opposite example I think, that it changes itself several times (and has divided fanbase for those era), like between the old school one (with wide landscape and exotic supercars), tuning era (Underground, etc.), Burnout-like era (Hot Pursuit 2010, etc.), etc. The latest one seems to follow the tuning one, but yeah NFS constantly changes, and yeah the changes aren't met with complete positivity too. NFS fanbase displays an example of nostalgia being a powerful drug too, seen in the reception of Most Wanted 2012.

And if they take into account for environment graphics like that they'd be still wrong for focusing on "irrelevant" stuff? There are debates about the dam in High Speed Ring.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[ShiftingGears]

And if they take into account for environment graphics like that they'd be still wrong for focusing on "irrelevant" stuff? There are debates about the dam in High Speed Ring.

I'm fine with it so long as the focus is on what you can see while you're actually racing.

Though my personal preference is that they tone it down the gaudy use of giant lakes, bridges and tunnels. It is possible to have a picturesque seeing that looks real.

 

[ImaRobot]

What was this then?

That's the exact thing that I said I posted. That also has nothing to do with psychology, and more so common sense. You're visually frustrated, you're making it known as well, and you're constantly talking about redundancy and frustration with the conversation itself. You're letting that cloud your vision. So the common sense thing to do is to remove yourself if you're so irritated by it. Why keep going on if you obviously hate talking about it?

Has “shut up” written all over it.

Again, it’s your interpretation of what I said that makes it come across to you in that particular way. You failed to understand the intention of what was being said. I could probably repeat it a hundred times over, and you still wouldn’t understand. I think I’ve already explained it three times

It doesn't though, like you're trying to tell me, that's just how you choose to see it. That's likely because you don't understand, because it's starting to seem like you're misunderstanding a lot of things. Telling you that you have no right to try to decide when a conversation is done, or what warrants discussion is not telling you to shut up, and again is just a victim mentality. It literally just means that you're not allowed to silence a conversation because of you feel about it. You say you're not doing that, cool, but that's how its been looking from the get go.

Like Samus just said, it was an irrelevant remark within the topic of the discussion. It was not related to my argument on why PD shouldn’t adopt any of the suggested approaches over the license tests. Yet you still treat it like it was. What you said there basically confirmed it again.

I'm not sure how you're not understanding, but it was related to mine. I can use that information how I see fit. It just happened to reinforce my opinion that it's not that it was a bad idea you're arguing against, but their capability in accomplishing improvements in area's that aren't graphics or physics.

You’re actually doing it right now. Clutter the topic with obfuscation, and then you’ll blame me when I eventually decide to opt out of the theatrics.

I'm not though, I'm taking exactly what your'e saying and discussing it with you. Now you just happen to be not talking about single instance about any aspect of the game. Like Usual. The more you post the less and less it becomes about the game and the more it becomes about the person you're discussing with because you seemingly aren't capable to keep the conversation going because you end up getting frustrated and label everything as unnecessary, unwarranted, petty, and so on. If you can't stick to a discussion and have to resort to theatrics rather than discuss, than yeah I wouldn't be surprised how some people would react.

So what is it you actually mean to imply when you mock someone’s decision to leave the trivial discussions you always steer toward?

This trivial discussion, that is now no longer about the game because you chose to steer it that way? I was talking about the game, you're the one that wanted to dive deep into psychology for whatever reason when aside from my opening comment that told you you have no place telling people what warrants discussion, I've been talking about the game first and foremost. You're intentionally blinding yourself if you haven't looked back and checked that. If you're going to continue to pretend that, than you're either a liar, or dishonest, or both.

I'd also like to point out one single time I implied you were a coward, I'd like you to point out when I mocked you for leaving a discussion. The problem being here is that you're mixing me up with @Silver Arrows, either that, or you're playing the massive victim complex and just assuming something you have no idea about

From the get go you addressed me like I’m the bad person. You wouldn’t do that if you weren’t annoyed by my presence. Then I point out why I think you’re the one being annoying, and then I’m suddenly wrong for taking issue with that. Hypocrisy at its finest.

So how does that make me playing the victim complex from the get go? Also, you're making yourself out to be the bad person because literally not one single person has said anything of the such. If you feel like you're being made the bad person because you were told you're not allowed to stifle a discussion because you don't agree with it, than maybe what you originally did is lingering more on you than you thought. This exact quote is why you're being labeled as trying to go for the victim complex. The only one who ever said anything about being wrong, or bad, is yourself. Try talking about what people are actually saying instead of making things up.

Don’t project that responsibility onto me. Discussion was on topic until you shared your wisdom about how I’m supposed to articulate things and behave, like always.

Why wouldn't I? You're part of this discussion and you have turned it less and less about the Licenses and more and more about the people discussing. The discussion was a discussion long before that, and long after that. That one single aspect threw you off so much that you decided to focus on that instead of the actual discussion that was vastly more about GT, and less about the people saying it. If you want to discuss, how about making your next post about the actual game this time instead? because your last few have been nothing but trying to attack a person instead of trying to further a discussion.

Look at this whole post you just did. This is exactly the issue. Then look at your last few and watch how you went more and more on about psychology as I tried to actually discuss the game. The only time that I joined that discussion about "psychology" was to respond to you because you brought it up about me, not the other way around. You steered it this way now you're upset with where its gone and are being completely dishonest about things.

So again, how about you make the next post actually about the game, because you've been steering off that path for a long while now and the root cause of the actual problem.
.

 

[Nielsen]

That's the exact thing that I said I posted. That also has nothing to do with psychology, and more so common sense. You're visually frustrated, you're making it known as well, and you're constantly talking about redundancy and frustration with the conversation itself. You're letting that cloud your vision. So the common sense thing to do is to remove yourself if you're so irritated by it. Why keep going on if you obviously hate talking about it?


It doesn't though, like you're trying to tell me, that's just how you choose to see it. That's likely because you don't understand, because it's starting to seem like you're misunderstanding a lot of things. Telling you that you have no right to try to decide when a conversation is done, or what warrants discussion is not telling you to shut up, and again is just a victim mentality. It literally just means that you're not allowed to silence a conversation because of you feel about it. You say you're not doing that, cool, but that's how its been looking from the get go.


I'm not sure how you're not understanding, but it was related to mine. I can use that information how I see fit. It just happened to reinforce my opinion that it's not that it was a bad idea you're arguing against, but their capability in accomplishing improvements in area's that aren't graphics or physics.


I'm not though, I'm taking exactly what your'e saying and discussing it with you. Now you just happen to be not talking about single instance about any aspect of the game. Like Usual. The more you post the less and less it becomes about the game and the more it becomes about the person you're discussing with because you seemingly aren't capable to keep the conversation going because you end up getting frustrated and label everything as unnecessary, unwarranted, petty, and so on. If you can't stick to a discussion and have to resort to theatrics rather than discuss, than yeah I wouldn't be surprised how some people would react.

This trivial discussion, that is now no longer about the game because you chose to steer it that way? I was talking about the game, you're the one that wanted to dive deep into psychology for whatever reason when aside from my opening comment that told you you have no place telling people what warrants discussion, I've been talking about the game first and foremost. You're intentionally blinding yourself if you haven't looked back and checked that. If you're going to continue to pretend that, than you're either a liar, or dishonest, or both.

I'd also like to point out one single time I implied you were a coward, I'd like you to point out when I mocked you for leaving a discussion. The problem being here is that you're mixing me up with @Silver Arrows, either that, or you're playing the massive victim complex and just assuming something you have no idea about


So how does that make me playing the victim complex from the get go? Also, you're making yourself out to be the bad person because literally not one single person has said anything of the such. If you feel like you're being made the bad person because you were told you're not allowed to stifle a discussion because you don't agree with it, than maybe what you originally did is lingering more on you than you thought. This exact quote is why you're being labeled as trying to go for the victim complex. The only one who ever said anything about being wrong, or bad, is yourself. Try talking about what people are actually saying instead of making things up.


Why wouldn't I? You're part of this discussion and you have turned it less and less about the Licenses and more and more about the people discussing. The discussion was a discussion long before that, and long after that. That one single aspect threw you off so much that you decided to focus on that instead of the actual discussion that was vastly more about GT, and less about the people saying it. If you want to discuss, how about making your next post about the actual game this time instead? because your last few have been nothing but trying to attack a person instead of trying to further a discussion.

Look at this whole post you just did. This is exactly the issue. Then look at your last few and watch how you went more and more on about psychology as I tried to actually discuss the game. The only time that I joined that discussion about "psychology" was to respond to you because you brought it up about me, not the other way around. You steered it this way now you're upset with where its gone and are being completely dishonest about things.

So again, how about you make the next post actually about the game, because you've been steering off that path for a long while now and the root cause of the actual problem.
.

To summarize, you read what I say, but in your head it constantly gets twisted to mean something else. Then I elaborate to help you understand but you always insist on knowing better than the person who said it. What’s worse, you repeatedly interrupt constructive and on-topic discussions with this irrelevant nonsense. You’d be better off discussing the actual topic than obsessing over how you think it’s being discussed. Most people including myself come here to discuss games, not mental processes. I’m done feeding your derailment. Don’t ever bother me with this attitude again, otherwise I’ll have to report it as harassment.

 

[ImaRobot]

To summarize, you read what I say, but in your head it constantly gets twisted to mean something else. Then I elaborate to help you understand but you always insist on knowing better than the person who said it. What’s worse, you repeatedly interrupt constructive and on-topic discussions with this irrelevant nonsense. You’d be better off discussing the actual topic than obsessing over how you think it’s being discussed. Most people including myself come here to discuss games, not mental processes. I’m done feeding your derailment. Don’t ever bother me with this attitude again, otherwise I’ll have to report it as harassment.

It never got twisted, it has been what you said from the get go. Once you said that its just your opinion that it's meaningless and unnecessary to talk about, than we stopped talking about it. I also never said that I know better, I only ever said how it came across, and again, once you said it was your opinion, it was dropped until you brought it up again, and again, and again, and again.

I didn't interrupt anything, in fact I was trying to discuss the license test but you instead chose to derail it with talk of psychology and pettiness, lies and half truths, and then decide to just double down on that instead of actually trying to further the discussion about the game that everyone is having, besides you. If you come here to discuss games than discuss them and stop trying to make it about the people, stop playing dumb, and stop playing a victim.

Again, I implore you to go back and see how many times I've actually tried talking about the game that you kept trying to derail it because for some reason you decided yourself that you're a bad guy and you're wrong, adopting a victim complex, and decided to attack that point instead of discussing the actual game. You then continued to spout lies about thing's I've said, and instead of doing the honest thing and acknowledging it you ignore it in an asinine fashion. Report away, because I've done nothing wrong with the way I'm talking to you, and if you continue to choose to be dishonest and outright lie, than it's not going to stop, because that's just a stupid thing to say seeing how you choose to address things. You should have done this a long time ago before misconstruing and skewing things that never even happened in the first place.

 

[Dave A]

I don't want to silence criticism (because I'm against double standard, and I'd agree against the daft ones like AI) but why people want to gain the rights to criticize and have others understand them without being attacked personally, but for the opposite end, it's ok to talk down the views of people who'd tolerate more of GT's identity (not flaws like AI, but stuff like old course, soundtrack, or such), and that they're not worth for trying to understand over?

There's the thing, both sides of the debate are as valid as one another. Ultimately everyone wants the game to be what they want. Even if your view is a minority one, it's not wrong, it's just what you want. It's all about how you express that view and discuss it with others that matters.

To throw my hat into the ring (again), I would start the game off with a brief (but skippable) tutorial covering the controls on a basic track/proving ground type enviroment. It would show you the controls, then get you to do some basic manouvers and finally a lap of a fairly straightforward track and then based on how well you it could recommend what you do next.

I would keep the license tests, but I'd rebadge them as a driving school that would be entirely optional. Perhaps completing it could yeild some rewards.

The events themselves I'd consider having them all open, so the only thing restricting your entry would be having a vehicle that is eligible for the event.

I do have plenty of other ideas I've suggested in other threads, including the one you created but I think you could do that and keep the GT "identity" in tact.

I've often spoken of evolution rather than revolution, I don't want to see Gran Turismo turn into Assetto Corsa, if I want Assetto Corsa that's what I'll play, and I do enjoy the journey of starting with a cheap car and working up, but not everyone else does, nor do they have to.

 

[ImaRobot]

I would keep the license tests, but I'd rebadge them as a driving school that would be entirely optional. Perhaps completing it could yeild some rewards.

This is kind of what I was thinking of too with the idea I put out earlier. Offer credit rewards so they newbies can get a boost if they want to take the time to do them. If you're well versed already it's likely that the credit boost isn't going to change too much how you play the game, so it wouldn't be a thing that mattered to me. That would give incentive for those that are new to give the tests a shot, or even the completionist as well.

 

[05XR8]

Wow..options. Who wouldn’t want options?

 

[Imari]

There's the thing, both sides of the debate are as valid as one another. Ultimately everyone wants the game to be what they want. Even if your view is a minority one, it's not wrong, it's just what you want. It's all about how you express that view and discuss it with others that matters.

Yes and no. An opinion is an opinion, and you can't argue that someone doesn't hold an opinion that they say they do. They think whatever they think. You can argue that their opinion is illogical, misguided, misinformed or just plain stupid though.

When the argument is between improving or upgrading the licence test system (in whatever form that might take) or never altering it at all because it's perfect already, one of those opinions is obviously ridiculous. There can be a range of reasonable opinions on how you might alter a licence system, what the ultimate goals of a licence system should be, how much it should cater to one group of players over another, whether the work required to meet those goals is worthwhile or would be better spent on other aspects of the game, and so on. But the discussion of "should the licence system be improved?" is a non-starter.

Every aspect of every game ever made should always be a candidate for improvement for the next iteration, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either a troll or so disconnected from reality that their opinion should absolutely be discounted as invalid.

Wow..options. Who wouldn’t want options?

People who define their self-worth through other people's suffering. Everyone must be exactly the same, and go through the same things that they went through even if it wasn't enjoyable. Because it was a game, and games are fun, and they paid money for it so they must have enjoyed it otherwise it would have been a stupid purchase. And they're not stupid, oh no, lordy no.

I think the great example is that FFXIV allows you to boost past the levelling part straight to the current expansion if you want. This skips a whole bunch of learning and experience and great gameplay and interesting storyline. It also skips a lot of time consuming ********. Some people do it, but the vast majority still seem to prefer to play through the game (the fact that the boost is paid notwithstanding). Having the option doesn't seem to negatively impact anything for those who want to play the game "normally", and there are people that really like it. Everybody wins.

And this is in a game that is actually multiplayer and actually has systems that are significantly more complex than "button to go, button to stop" - not a single player mode of a racing game that could be entirely offline if Polyphony didn't have such a hard-on for collecting user data.

 

[05XR8]

Speaking of user data, I just had a look at the Kudos Prime Users Camapign progress. If I’ve read it right, only 40%(nearly 6,000,000) of users have 0 progress. GT7 should be interesting.
Once we get the game and I see how everything works, if it’s like GT1-4, I’ll probably never touch Sport Mode. If I have to do the licence tests, I’ll do the licence tests. If I don’t have to do them and PD give us plenty of tools to create good Custom Races, I’ll be in heaven.

 

[dimassa19]

Just to change the original livery a little bit... (by benji21)

Below, the Maisto diecast.

 

[SnakeOfBacon]

I'm honestly just happy that PD realized that paper is made from trees not the other way around. The 2D 'paper' trees in the PS3 era was one of my biggest annoyances graphic-wise. So naturally I was quite happy to see they made drastic improvements in this area with GT Sport.

Trees definitely got a lot better for the PS4, but on some tracks, Yamagiwa for example, many of the nearby trees are still blurry, obvious origami... until you take a photo and the game renders the high res tree textures! They're really nice!

If the PS5 can show the HQ trees in gameplay it'll look like a huge upgrade, especially for Kyoto and other tracks where greenery covers half the screen.

 

[ShiftingGears]

Playing Gran Turismo 1 at the moment. I think its really undersold how much the progression feels like youre an amateur racer.

The reason I think it works so well is that they had almost no real life racecars in there, it was all appropriated.

Having a credits based progression starts getting unstuck when the games start incorporating more real racing series which they really started doing in GT2.

 

[05XR8]

Still, amazing there are only six cars on track(ironically, nearly the same problem were seeingwith the PS4) and the game provided everything.

 

[Silver Arrows]

Playing Gran Turismo 1 at the moment. I think its really undersold how much the progression feels like youre an amateur racer.

The reason I think it works so well is that they had almost no real life racecars in there, it was all appropriated.

Having a credits based progression starts getting unstuck when the games start incorporating more real racing series which they really started doing in GT2.

Admittedly, I always found the idea of doing grassroots / SCCA style of racing, where you rung what you've brung and there's less of a focus (if none at all) on actual turn key race cars, incredibly appealing. Really, only NFS Prostreet has come close to matching this idea, and it's one that absolutely could hold water if done right.

 

[Veinz]

The prices for upgrades in the trailer has me wondering about the in-game economy and how they monetize it this time around. Will they allow credits to be purchasable? I hope not.

 

[o000o]

The prices for upgrades in the trailer has me wondering about the in-game economy and how they monetize it this time around. Will they allow credits to be purchasable? I hope not.

The trailer still used yen currency like Japanese version I guess

 

[05XR8]

Still have to wonder though. Even if the upgrades are 400, 500 Cr. How much will each race payout?
I think the Custom Race in GT Sport pay out about 10,000 Cr. with Pro AI. In those older GT pics you posted, the payouts don’t look like much: 4000-7000 Cr. Might be tough to bank Cr, unless the gift cars can be sold(which it seems like selling cars do factor into gaining Cr.).

 

[United6694]

This will be the first GT that I don't see myself getting, I've got the others 1-6 (not including sport as IMO it is a spin off)

When the PS5 was announced and released I decided to wait until GT7 was out to get it as a bundle, but having played Sport on my brothers PS4, everything i've seen so far looks like Sport with tweaks.

Is it just me or is anyone else really not that bothered or excited about it coming out? Don't get me wrong, when I was watching the first PS5 stream that had footage in I was hyped but as i've seen more I'm no just very indifferent about it at the moment. I think the decision to have cross gen whilst understandable, is the wrong one IMO.

I was hoping this would be the game that forces me to jump generation, but unless all the reviews on here when it releases are amazing I really can't see it happening which is a shame as I love the series and have countless happy memories playing the games growing up.

 

[Samus]

This will be the first GT that I don't see myself getting, I've got the others 1-6 (not including sport as IMO it is a spin off)

When the PS5 was announced and released I decided to wait until GT7 was out to get it as a bundle, but having played Sport on my brothers PS4, everything i've seen so far looks like Sport with tweaks.

Is it just me or is anyone else really not that bothered or excited about it coming out? Don't get me wrong, when I was watching the first PS5 stream that had footage in I was hyped but as i've seen more I'm no just very indifferent about it at the moment. I think the decision to have cross gen whilst understandable, is the wrong one IMO.

I was hoping this would be the game that forces me to jump generation, but unless all the reviews on here when it releases are amazing I really can't see it happening which is a shame as I love the series and have countless happy memories playing the games growing up.

Well, we haven't really seem much of the game yet. We haven't seen any 100% new tracks, we've only seen a handful of cars, and importantly we've not seen much of the gameplay. How the AI are, how the career is structured and gated, etc. What we have seen so far is nothing new, other than minor things. There has been no new features yet.

Hopefully in the next few months when they show us more it'll be something that makes it more desirable.

 

[CBH]

This will be the first GT that I don't see myself getting, I've got the others 1-6 (not including sport as IMO it is a spin off)

When the PS5 was announced and released I decided to wait until GT7 was out to get it as a bundle, but having played Sport on my brothers PS4, everything i've seen so far looks like Sport with tweaks.

Is it just me or is anyone else really not that bothered or excited about it coming out? Don't get me wrong, when I was watching the first PS5 stream that had footage in I was hyped but as i've seen more I'm no just very indifferent about it at the moment. I think the decision to have cross gen whilst understandable, is the wrong one IMO.

I was hoping this would be the game that forces me to jump generation, but unless all the reviews on here when it releases are amazing I really can't see it happening which is a shame as I love the series and have countless happy memories playing the games growing up.

It's going to look like GT Sport with tweaks, but this is going to be a Numbered game and that the fans want. GT7 will be heaps better because it will be a Combination of Past, Present, and Future.

 

[ScottPuss20]

This will be the first GT that I don't see myself getting, I've got the others 1-6 (not including sport as IMO it is a spin off)

When the PS5 was announced and released I decided to wait until GT7 was out to get it as a bundle, but having played Sport on my brothers PS4, everything i've seen so far looks like Sport with tweaks.

Is it just me or is anyone else really not that bothered or excited about it coming out? Don't get me wrong, when I was watching the first PS5 stream that had footage in I was hyped but as i've seen more I'm no just very indifferent about it at the moment. I think the decision to have cross gen whilst understandable, is the wrong one IMO.

I was hoping this would be the game that forces me to jump generation, but unless all the reviews on here when it releases are amazing I really can't see it happening which is a shame as I love the series and have countless happy memories playing the games growing up.

Let me tell you this: once you get the PS5, you won't want to go back. I've only had mine for three days and let me tell you, it's far better than the PS4. GT Sport may not look that different on the surface compared to GT7 but if my experience in Assetto Corsa Competizione has taught me anything, it's that the feeling of the game will be different. I wouldn't despair if I were you.

 

[kjb]

Let me tell you this: once you get the PS5, you won't want to go back. I've only had mine for three days and let me tell you, it's far better than the PS4. GT Sport may not look that different on the surface compared to GT7 but if my experience in Assetto Corsa Competizione has taught me anything, it's that the feeling of the game will be different. I wouldn't despair if I were you.

This is so true. Love my PS 5