Gran Turismo Sport: General Discussion

[synon]

Yes and why would it and any of the other features need modifications to cars to function, other than for those who want it and don't like the idea of limited tuning. Once again there is such thing as utility and how that plays to the entire system, what you want lacks it and thus as circumstance seems to point right now, wont see itself in the game.

Now does that make the game lose purpose or make it less of what it's trying to become? Not at all I'd think.

Yes, I agree having modifications aren't needed, but that kind of applies to a lot of features of the game, eg the livery editor. Any feature that people want that's omitted will obviously affect their perception of the desirability of the game.

You said he could have gone negative...yet he never tried with his arbitrary review/rating of an unreleased game with only partial revealed content...

Even the 0-10 that you somehow think he based on still doesn't show negatives rather positives due to the fact his negatives still scale in favor.

For example I could make 20 points about a game all of them being negatives to me and then for those 20 points award +.5 for each. Thus the game would get a 10/10. So anyone not reading this journalistic master piece would think "well it's got to be a great game". Also if it was indeed your point then why comment on what Slipz said as if to try and help understand some deeper thought to Pro's scoring system.

Any subjective score for a game is going to be a fairly arbitrary figure, but since Pro broke the scores down it is fairly easy to see what his rationale was.

In your example, the score would be 10/20 not 10/10 ??

 

[Tassie_tiger]

It's a question that needs to be answered before release.

Most other games count tuning variants as the same car. For example, AC has ~100 different models if I remember correctly, some with multiple tuning presets at various power levels. If GTS only actually has 50 cars each with several tuning presets, I think some customers would like to know that before they purchase.

Unfortunately, Gran Turismo has a history of "boosting" it's car lists. Base Models, the regional duplicates like Honda/Acura, Vauxhall/Opel etc., weird duplicates that don't exist like the two Veyrons, RM models and so on. I strongly suspect that four different tunes of Evo will be counted as four different cars, based on how they've counted the car lists in the recent past. Assuming that every car has a "stock" form and at least one race tuned version, that would put the actual car list somewhere south of 70. Which considering the amount of VGTs mixed in there, wouldn't be that impressive and would be an even more colossal departure from the standard Gran Turismo formula.

It's speculation, but it's more or less what I'm expecting at this point. I hope to be proven wrong.

Yes, the car count dilemma.
I don't think there's much question that we'll know the full car list in advance of release, so no great fears about purchasing blind there.

Anyway, it may, or may not, come as a surprise that I've had a look.
Here's what I came up with.

I count 36 different cars so far.
To that you can add 1 of every VGT created (23), plus 6 Rally Cars and 2 Safety Cars.
(I think it's fair to separate those last 8)
So 67 all up.
This excludes all Gr. variations or BoP multiples.

Surprisingly this leaves only 10 cars added so far through Gr. variations.
(And most are Gr.3's anyway, so it's quite a reasonable number.)
4C, C7, Mustang, F-type, RC-F, WRX, Roadster S x2, and Evo x2.

Therefore a total count of 77.
Perhaps there is a flaw in my thinking, but looking at it like this, the list doesn't seem as bad as first expected.

But start counting a BoP version for every VGT and you're looking at 100 already.
That's not so good.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yes, I agree having modifications aren't needed, but that kind of applies to a lot of features of the game, eg the livery editor. Any feature that people want that's omitted will obviously affect their perception of the desirability of the game.

Why because they couldn't take time in understanding what the focus of the game was? Livery editor is like skins in any competitive esport game that distinguish you from others...seems quite simple and necessary in relation to what is being built.

Any subjective score for a game is going to be a fairly arbitrary figure, but since Pro broke the scores down it is fairly easy to see what his rationale was.

In your example, the score would be 10/20 not 10/10 ??

Not really, he could have made endless points with the number system used and given the game a score that was good but not perfect, hence the defensive act and leave when asked.

My example would be 10/10 since I never said it hinged on how many points were made, just like he never indicated he just said he added them up. He just so happened to have 10 topics doesn't mean it was the basis doesn't mean it wasn't he never indicated, which is why he was asked.

 

[jm79]

Why because they couldn't take time in understanding what the focus of the game was? Livery editor is like skins in any competitive esport game that distinguish you from others...seems quite simple and necessary in relation to what is being built.





Not really, he could have made endless points with the number system used and given the game a score that was good but not perfect, hence the defensive act and leave when asked.

My example would be 10/10 since I never said it hinged on how many points were made, just like he never indicated he just said he added them up. He just so happened to have 10 topics doesn't mean it was the basis doesn't mean it wasn't he never indicated, which is why he was asked.

We should poll members on their fantasy review scores.

I give it a 9/10 👍

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

We should poll members on their fantasy review scores.

I give it a 9/10 👍

You give Pro's a 9/10?

 

[Griffith500]

...

Not really, he could have made endless points with the number system used and given the game a score that was good but not perfect, hence the defensive act and leave when asked.

My example would be 10/10 since I never said it hinged on how many points were made, just like he never indicated he just said he added them up. He just so happened to have 10 topics doesn't mean it was the basis doesn't mean it wasn't he never indicated, which is why he was asked.

I'm getting a bit bored with this discussion of arbitrary numerical scores. And I'm struggling to see what a negative score might mean, or even what significance a score of zero might hold in that case.

No. They're arbitrary, end-of.


Focus on the opinions and the value judgments made, and compare them with your own. The number is always meaningless without that information anyway.

It seemed to me like a well presented list of pros and cons for the game, clearly from a personal perspective and on a basis of how it currently appears - crucially, all of that was communicated. It's no different from what we've all been doing already.

The numerical score thing was perhaps ill-judged, but it was explained, meaning the arbitrary framework was laid bare so that others can draw their own comparisons.

What else is actually required?

You give Pro's a 9/10?

No, the game. Don't get precious, now.

 

[jm79]

You give Pro's a 9/10?

Haha, I'd say my review score of his fantasy review score is lower, 4/10 perhaps.

My own completely arbitrary, made-up score, however, is 9/10.



On a slightly more serious note, however, it will be interesting to see how this game reviews, generally.
With it being very online-focused, and with a potentially steady post-release DLC schedule (conjecture), it will be difficult to give it a quick numerical score, no? (at least compared to previous GT's)

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm getting a bit bored with this discussion of arbitrary numerical scores. And I'm struggling to see what a negative score might mean, or even what significance a score of zero might hold in that case.

No. They're arbitrary, end-of.


Focus on the opinions and the value judgments made, and compare them with your own. The number is always meaningless without that information anyway.

It seemed to me like a well presented list of pros and cons for the game, clearly from a personal perspective and on a basis of how it currently appears - crucially, all of that was communicated. It's no different from what we've all been doing already.

The numerical score thing was perhaps ill-judged, but it was explained, meaning the arbitrary framework was laid bare so that others can draw their own comparisons.

What else is actually required?

He explained stuff fine but as you pointed out used a rigged scoring system that seemed to detract from points made positive or negative, to a whole sum that meant far more, especially to those who can't be bothered to read (their fault though). Once again why he was asked because if it was a true pro/con list and the game still had some way to go even without seeing what the game is half way, how'd it get an 8/10. And how did it's negatives become small positives.

In the end I only questioned it because another user defended it and made me think "well how is that correct?" My main issue is why a function of a game needs to be added and if not added takes away from the game in some degree.

No, the game. Don't get precious, now.

To you perhaps but doesn't seem the intended thus why ask for clarification. EDIT: See he clarified it for me, I understand had a laugh nothing else to talk about. It's about that simple

 

[Samus]

This ladies and gentleman is what happens when we've no actual news or updates to discuss.

 

[Griffith500]

Haha, I'd say my review score of his fantasy review score is lower, 4/10 perhaps.

My own completely arbitrary, made-up score, however, is 9/10.



On a slightly more serious note, however, it will be interesting to see how this game reviews, generally.
With it being very online-focused, and with a potentially steady post-release DLC schedule (conjecture), it will be difficult to give it a quick numerical score, no? (at least compared to previous GT's)

Oh sure, it's always difficult to give a numerical score on any factual basis. But that hasn't stopped anyone in the past!

He explained stuff fine but as you pointed out used a rigged scoring system that seemed to detract from points made positive or negative, to a whole sum that meant far more, especially to those who can't be bothered to read (their fault though). Once again why he was asked because if it was a true pro/con list and the game still had some way to go even without seeing what the game is half way, how'd it get an 8/10. And how did it's negatives become small positives.

In the end I only questioned it because another user defended it and made me think "well how is that correct?" My main issue is why a function of a game needs to be added and if not added takes away from the game in some degree.

He gave it 8/10 then said it had a long way to go and a short time to get there. What does that say about that individual's scoring system?

Small positives are more negative than large positives. The position of zero on the number line is arbitrary; come on, simple concepts here.


The issue is that you seem to think 8/10 is too high for the game in its "current state" (how are you making that assessment, exactly? ), but the original poster thinks it's not high enough to warrant his / her undivided attention come launch day! So this whole discussion has been a waste of energy.

To you perhaps but doesn't seem the intended thus why ask for clarification.

No that's exactly what was meant. Obviously.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

He gave it 8/10 then said it had a long way to go and a short time to get there. What does that say about that individual's scoring system?

Small positives are more negative than large positives. The position of zero on the number line is arbitrary; come on, simple concepts here.

Okay, then why keep bringing it up. I haven't said anything about zero on a number line other than to try and see what another user was getting at.

The issue is that you seem to think 8/10 is too high for the game in its "current state" (how are you making that assessment, exactly? ), but the original poster thinks it's not high enough to warrant his / her undivided attention come launch day! So this whole discussion has been a waste of energy.

I think, you're reading into it a bit too much and considering your history and our arguments in regards to GT related items I expected you to get this point sooner or later. Also user never said he wasn't going to pick it up or not based on his 8/10 review. I'm simply saying any number is arbitrary as I've said prior since the game is unknown in the state of knowledge we have of it. Also if I thought the game deserved negative scoring or less scoring then why would I question him in the first place on a remark that seemed to shine negatively about the game? Seem like you're grasping at straws.

No that's exactly what was meant. Obviously.

K

 

[Tassie_tiger]

I'm getting a bit bored with this discussion of arbitrary numerical scores. And I'm struggling to see what a negative score might mean, or even what significance a score of zero might hold in that case.

No. They're arbitrary, end-of.


Focus on the opinions and the value judgments made, and compare them with your own. The number is always meaningless without that information anyway.

It seemed to me like a well presented list of pros and cons for the game, clearly from a personal perspective and on a basis of how it currently appears - crucially, all of that was communicated. It's no different from what we've all been doing already.

The numerical score thing was perhaps ill-judged, but it was explained, meaning the arbitrary framework was laid bare so that others can draw their own comparisons.

What else is actually required?


No, the game. Don't get precious, now.

Couldn't agree more.

Particularly this:
"It seemed to me like a well presented list of pros and cons for the game, clearly from a personal perspective and on a basis of how it currently appears - crucially, all of that was communicated. It's no different from what we've all been doing already."

Well said. 👍

 

[nasanu]

Yes, I agree having modifications aren't needed, but that kind of applies to a lot of features of the game, eg the livery editor.

No. A livery editor wont break the game. Modifying cars usually does. I quit Forza because of the stupid mods. While at first it was fun setting a world top 30 time in my first test race of my 4WD crazy high power Honda Integra, the novelty wears off fast when you realize that to compete you need to be driving some unrealistic and very poor handling monster creation.

Besides this is GT Sport. Sport. What motorsport doesn't regulate the spec of the cars closely?

At the very least in a sim modified cars should break as often as they do in real life, ie every few meters.

 

[Neomone]

Yes, the car count dilemma.

Uh, why are you laughing at me? Was I wrong somehow?

I don't think there's much question that we'll know the full car list in advance of release, so no great fears about purchasing blind there.

One would think so, although developers have withheld information in the past when they knew it would negatively affect sales. Regardless, it will be available immediately after launch for those who are willing to wait.

To that you can add 1 of every VGT created (23), plus 6 Rally Cars and 2 Safety Cars.

Have we seen all the VGTs in GTS? Given that they supposedly had to be rebuilt for GTS, I think it's fair to question whether or not all of them will appear. Licensing or ability to fit them cleanly into a class may have come into play.

But start counting a BoP version for every VGT and you're looking at 100 already.
That's not so good.

This is my worry, and would explain why they haven't been drip feeding us more cars. If they legitimately don't have that many unique models left they're going to want to save them for a news blitz near release.

 

[TheProRacer]

You should read this, because I have fixed it to were it is readable and makes sense to people that don't have much.

And I won't be back after this. You deserve me not being here because I always cause dumb stuff simply because I'm too ignorant to even care about what other people think, but that's besides the point. I'm sorry for being retarded. Good bye.

Here's my review based on what I've seen. Any information you deem unnecessary shall not be read for the sake of argument. The scoring system goes plus one for pro, minus one for con and then it is divided for a fictional percentage. If you didn't understand that, don't read. Quote TL;DR. *Check for sarcasm.*

-140 vehicles? Bring it. I know they have to really work to get those great looking cars on a next generation console. So far they look fantastic. Can't wait to take a jab. +1

-29 tracks layouts? Okay. This isn't really a thing that's significant to me, I just don't want to constantly race on the same track. My favorite, the original tracks shown look... good. We'll see. +1

-Career Mode? I don't know how to feel about this, I'm not a huge fan of online racing. From what I've heard it just gets you ready for Sport Mode, which is not the greatest idea. Most people still want full offline races. -1

-Sport Mode? This is not the Gran Turismo I've grown up on, but I'll accept it for the fact that they are trying something new. +1

-Livery Editor? K. Again, another thing I don't find significant, but others think highly about it. I will still use it to make myself different. +1

-Limited Tuning? Okay, that's fine, as long as we get some supa-fine tuning abilities. I take it. +1

-Graphics? Go get em'. They're the best I've seen yet. +1

-Physics? Let's hope it isn't Gran Turismo 2 "Drift Mode!" No, in all seriousness, it LOOKS pretty badass for Gran Turismo. +1

-Scapes? Yay, an extra reason to play for several hours! I like 'farting' around with these modes. +1

-Sound? I put this last for a reason. PD, sound may not have mattered last decade, but now is the time to shine, and if you mess this up, you're going to be looked down upon harshly. You've got to step it up. Yeah, sure, I used to not care either, but sounds are now the most important part of a racing game. Please, no more 5986cc V12 that sounds like a misfiring V11. **(Pagani Huayra in Gran Turismo 6 has the correct sound up to 3250rpm, and then it becomes a V10 sample. This is likely to due to incompletion or it was looked over.)** -1

80% what I hope for.

 

[jm79]

You should read this, because I have fixed it to were it is readable and makes sense to people that don't have much.

And I won't be back after this. You deserve me not being here because I always cause dumb stuff simply because I'm too ignorant to even care about what other people think, but that's besides the point. I'm sorry for being retarded. Good bye.

Don't go Pro!

 

[Samus]

Have we seen all the VGTs in GTS? Given that they supposedly had to be rebuilt for GTS, I think it's fair to question whether or not all of them will appear. Licensing or ability to fit them cleanly into a class may have come into play.

The VGT would have all been made with the new method, everything that was DLC for GT6 and even the last few cars made for GT6 seem to have been made with the new method.

 

[TheProRacer]

Don't go Pro!

Why not?

Everyone, check my avatar and profile post! BEAT IT! I'm not coming back now, no reason, no point, just me, myself and I, the dumb one.

√ c u l8tr m8s

 

[Tassie_tiger]

@Neomone
I wasn't laughing at you, but at the question mark for all of us surrounding the car count.
Sorry for the confusion.

All the VGT's (those already in GT6 plus the 2 that didn't make it) are listed under GTS, and have been stated as being in the game, so I included them.
And with the VW Roadster being 2 years old now and one of the early ones, it seemed reasonable to assume as such.
The only odd-ball left, so far as fitting into a Gr. would be the Mini.
But that's an easy Gr.3 car.

But as you say, to this point we've only seen, I think, 6.
You could look at it either way as to whether that helps or hinders the 140 car spots available.

 

[Aphelion]

Why not?

Everyone, check my avatar and profile post! BEAT IT! I'm not coming back now, no reason, no point, just me, myself and I, the dumb one.

√ c u l8tr m8s

 

[dacc10]

TS030 seems the benchmark, with the other 2 going up or down in power to suit BoP.

It's the most recent LMP1 so far, so that makes sense.

And the last thing LMP needed was the Alpine opening it's air brakes in front of you at La Sarthe blocking the view.

How will the Tomahawk(s?) fit in this fair and balanced scheme?

That's a problem only if you use bumper cam... otherwise, no problem at all. Bumper cam is not realistic in any way but players use it to be faster, so it should have downsides to it too.

The Tomahawk will fit the same way as any other. It won't have that absurd amount of power or top speed, neither those super aero dinamics properties like the X version.

 

[Griffith500]

Okay, then why keep bringing it up. I haven't said anything about zero on a number line other than to try and see what another user was getting at.

Because you don't seem to see the ramifications of negative scoring: it can go negative overall!

I think, you're reading into it a bit too much and considering your history and our arguments in regards to GT related items I expected you to get this point sooner or later. Also user never said he wasn't going to pick it up or not based on his 8/10 review. I'm simply saying any number is arbitrary as I've said prior since the game is unknown in the state of knowledge we have of it. Also if I thought the game deserved negative scoring or less scoring then why would I question him in the first place on a remark that seemed to shine negatively about the game? Seem like you're grasping at straws.

I'm sorry I've forgotten our "history". Send me a postcard so we can catch up. In the meantime I'll continue to address your posts as I would anyone else's.

Seems like you're backtracking anyway.

K

No, really. The construction of the sentence was unambiguous. I think you read too much into it, as I said.

 

[Samus]

It's the most recent LMP1 so far

Which is a great shame. I would have expected PD to have the 2014 line-up at the very least, if not the 2015 line-up. Instead they're so far all from 2009-2012. Not something to write home about in a 2016 racing title. I can't see any logic in having both so I guess the only hope is that the old cars are 'placeholder' and like the 09 NASCAR in GT5 they'll be replaced with the newer models for release. Unlikely though.

 

[Tassie_tiger]

I guess they'll have to swap the main component from the Chappy 2X with a shop bought laser pointer.

Which is a great shame. I would have expected PD to have the 2014 line-up at the very least, if not the 2015 line-up. Instead they're so far all from 2009-2012. Not something to write home about in a 2016 racing title. I can't see any logic in having both so I guess the only hope is that the old cars are 'placeholder' and like the 09 NASCAR in GT5 they'll be replaced with the newer models for release. Unlikely though.

Yep, not looking good.
I'm thinking the Nissan LM might make an appearance, but it's not looking good after that with the VGT's seemingly filling the gaps.

 

[Samus]

I guess they'll have to swap the main component from the Chappy 2X with a shop bought laser pointer.


Yep, not looking good.
I'm thinking the Nissan LM might make an appearance, but it's not looking good after that with the VGT's seemingly filling the gaps.

I think with the fact the real thing failed to ever reach it's expectations it would be wrong to continue to simulate it in a game as if it did. Plus Nissan probably aren't going to want to promote it any more anyway.

 

[Tassie_tiger]

I think with the fact the real thing failed to ever reach it's expectations it would be wrong to continue to simulate it in a game as if it did. Plus Nissan probably aren't going to want to promote it any more anyway.

That's a very good point. 👍

 

[dacc10]

Which is a great shame. I would have expected PD to have the 2014 line-up at the very least, if not the 2015 line-up. Instead they're so far all from 2009-2012. Not something to write home about in a 2016 racing title. I can't see any logic in having both so I guess the only hope is that the old cars are 'placeholder' and like the 09 NASCAR in GT5 they'll be replaced with the newer models for release. Unlikely though.

Yeah, that's true. Well, part of the list is still unknown, so there's a slight chance of us getting something more recent.

I think that, on that matter of LMP1s/Gr.1 cars, the biggest problem is still what the rest of the brands will get in the game. Aston Martin as a fairly recent car, but let's say Bentley (did Bentley appeared in on of those brands list on the reveal event?) only has a 13/15 year old LMP1, that probably wouldn't be able to fight back agains the more modern LMPs... Ferrari, Lamborghini, Ford, etc don't have any. I doubt any of those brands allow PD to modify one of their limited editions top end cars to look like a LMP (even though it would be cool seeing a LaFerrari based LMP), so what will happen to the variety in this specific class?

One think that occurred me a few days ago. Gr.2 class could (maybe should) be something like a class for those limited editions race cars made by some brands... A class with a Zonda R/Revolucion, Aston Martin Vulcan, Ferrari FXX-K/FXX, 599XX, Bugatti VGT, GT by Citroen Race Car, etc. Would this be a good class? Atleast it would look more believable than fitting any of these in Gr.1.

 

[Samus]

@TheProRacer if you're going just go, nobody cares for your temper tantrums.

 

[Griffith500]

@TheProRacer You have nothing to prove, please rejoin civil discourse.

That's a very good point. 👍

It is, but it's also a shame. The reason the real thing didn't work was primarily because of battery tech (or was it?). Anyway, I think it's an interesting concept that deserves attention, even if it's not low-hanging-fruit in respect of motorsport ambitions.

 

[Tassie_tiger]

Well people, I'm tired so I'll leave you all to the discussions.

But I'll leave you with this conspiracy theory.
The reason why most of the VGT's in GT6 had no tuning parts available to purchase, but the majority of them still had adjustable tuning settings was .......