Gran Turismo Sport: General Discussion

  • Thread starter Formidable
  • 47,132 comments
  • 4,775,279 views
After reading this https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...-from-team-walkenhorst-about-gt-sport.349093/
I may just have to buy a PS4. It may be more to do with watching all the racing this weekend: V8s, Super GT, Toyota 86 Series, Porsche Carrera Cup Australia/Asia, Australia GT3.

I'd love to get that M6 GT3(and all the other 'real' GT3 cars) on track and experience that simulated "realness".
There's a fair bit of assumption here, but if we can believe the couple of reports we've heard regarding using tunes for the M6 GT3 in GT Sport and then applying those tunes to real world practise at the Nurb. 24hour, it bodes well that tuning options and accuracy of those adjustments in-game are working well, and possibly the best we've seen in a GT game.
 
There's a fair bit of assumption here, but if we can believe the couple of reports we've heard regarding using tunes for the M6 GT3 in GT Sport and then applying those tunes to real world practise at the Nurb. 24hour, it bodes well that tuning options and accuracy of those adjustments in-game are working well, and possibly the best we've seen in a GT game.
No matter the "build", he/they(Kaz, co-drivers, etc) racers probably had access to special versions that may have been more real that the builds we have seen this far. Of course I'm speculating as well. Just seems if he is speaking this highly of the game, it would have to be good at that event.
 
No matter the "build", he/they(Kaz, co-drivers, etc) racers probably had access to special versions that may have been more real that the builds we have seen this far. Of course I'm speculating as well. Just seems if he is speaking this highly of the game, it would have to be good at that event.
Yep, I understand what you're saying.
Although I would tend to think the basics such as physics and tuning options (and how they react to change), would be pretty much locked in, even at that time.

Sure, different builds may have had small tweaks since then, but I picture most changes in builds now would be more around graphics improvements etc, as opposed to base physics and tuning calcs.

Either way, to my mind, it all sounds very promising for the finished product regarding physics and tuning options.
 
Honestly, this is a bit of a personal preference, whether you want the box art to be clear-cut in its intent or if you want it to be a bit more vague and make you curious and ask yourself what it's trying to convey.

I personally prefer the latter... your examples of "dude holding up a trophy" or "having a staring contest with an opponent over trophy" are boring to me and is the kind of box art I'd expect from American or European devs who tend to go for the former and whose box art often winds up being a bit lame/cheesy/tacky as a result.

I guess, but the purpose of the box it to encourage people to pick it up and buy it. It's not supposed to be artistic, it's supposed to be functional and any artistry is largely incidental. Ideally it should give the customer a decent idea of what the game is about at a glance. If they're interested in that sort of thing they may pick it up. Otherwise you're relying on them thinking "I have no idea what that game is about, I better spend some of my time picking it up and reading about it". I think you'll find that a lot of people will simply keep walking.

latest


This is a better example of what you're talking about. It's odd, and most people will take a moment to go "what the...oh, it's a tyre". That's the moment of hesitation that makes it work. But that image doesn't say anything much about the game except "probably cars", so they intelligently included the tagline "The real driving simulator". That tells the customer what they need to know about the game. It's the elevator pitch. The addition of the logo in colour compared to the rest of the monochrome image makes it pop and draws the customers eye to the tag line.

This is how you take a "weird" image and still make it a well designed cover. It's designed as a pattern interrupt, but it still contains all the information needed to tell the customer about the game and get them interested. It just takes the customer half a second more to process, and can probably still be done without breaking stride. It doesn't need ten seconds of picking up the box and scanning the back.

Gran Turismo Sport + constipated driver doesn't do that unless you already know what Gran Turismo is. Which many people do, but they're not the target of a box cover. An eye catching GT logo is all you need for people who know the brand already (which the GTS box still doesn't achieve). The target is people who haven't had exposure and may be seeing the game for the first time.
 
The classy style began with GT4.
Maybe, but it wasnt the bad side of classy style. (i liked the light/white/silver style more).

I also do like the style of GT1 and GT 2 menus, which are mainly dark/black/orange, but not in classy style
 
I'm fairly certain that someone interested in racing games, who see's a cover of someone wearing a racing suit, gloves, and helmet, would pick the game up off the shelf and take a look in a shop.

If somehow they are interested in racing games and have never heard of Gran Turismo, I doubt it would take much effort to find out how famous the game is.
And if they are interested in racing games, inevitably they would hear of the game and that's exactly what they would do.

If they were interested in first person shooters they wouldn't check out the game, regardless of what image was on the cover.


I think you guys are taking this stuff too far.
 
The more I think about it, GTS is catering more towards online gaming. The cover could be plain as can be. I don't know the PlayStation Store sales numbers for digital games. Anyone surfing the PS Store, will no doubt see "Gran Turismo Sport" and know what it is.
 
I think the idea of having a driver on the cover isn't bad considering the focus of the game. It could be nice to squeeze a car on there too for clarity, but I could understand if that makes it too busy.

I think what they've got is pretty weak both in terms of the selection of the image and in how they've presented it though. Driver in helmet is a good start, but "hunched over clenching fists" is terrible. Is he excited? Frustrated? Angry?

For myself, I'd go for something with a trophy in it. The driver unfortunately probably needs to have his helmet on so he can be an everyman, but that's OK. Get that model they've got and get him doing something like this:

099370e833a1ec42e9ebe3c0476d1a07213b0d84.jpg


Get some GT branding on there instead of F1, and it's a clear expression of what the game is about. The joy of winning. The drive for excellence. The ability for you to put yourself in that position.

So something like these?

227587-f1-2010-playstation-3-front-cover.jpg


F1_2011_Cover.jpg


Meh games, but the covers seem to do the job you mention (Without a Trophy admittedly).
 
Let's cut to the chase with this conversation.

Are we suggesting GT3 sold more than GT4 because it has an obscure image of a headlight as opposed to the rear of the Ford GT?
Are we suggesting GT6 would have sold more units if it had a different image other than the Chevy C7?

Seems a long bow to draw in the scheme of things for both those examples to me.
 
So something like these?

227587-f1-2010-playstation-3-front-cover.jpg


F1_2011_Cover.jpg


Meh games, but the covers seem to do the job you mention (Without a Trophy admittedly).

In many ways, yes. Those are well designed covers that clearly communicate the game. Not overly complex, good use of colour, well placed and eye catching logos. Replace the F1 car with a VGT or LMP and change the logos, and I think either of those would represent GTS well. They might wish to change the red/orange complementary scheme to to something like blue/purple to better suit the corporate colour scheme, but I think it would be largely optional.

Can anyone tell how much I like fine tuning design details? It's a :censored:ing art form, I swear to God, and so many companies pay it so little attention. Even the names of products are so very, very important.
 
Let's cut to the chase with this conversation.

Are we suggesting GT3 sold more than GT4 because it has an obscure image of a headlight as opposed to the rear of the Ford GT?
Are we suggesting GT6 would have sold more units if it had a different image other than the Chevy C7?

Seems a long bow to draw in the scheme of things for both those examples to me.


You severly under estimate how important little details like that are. In a graphic design class I took just for fun (since the other important class I wanted to take was cancelled due to lack of students), my teacher actually stressed a lot of points similar to what @Imari mentioned. In fact, his response to my post with the covers can be also applied to movie posters as well.
 
I guess, but the purpose of the box it to encourage people to pick it up and buy it. It's not supposed to be artistic, it's supposed to be functional and any artistry is largely incidental. Ideally it should give the customer a decent idea of what the game is about at a glance. If they're interested in that sort of thing they may pick it up. Otherwise you're relying on them thinking "I have no idea what that game is about, I better spend some of my time picking it up and reading about it". I think you'll find that a lot of people will simply keep walking.

latest


This is a better example of what you're talking about. It's odd, and most people will take a moment to go "what the...oh, it's a tyre". That's the moment of hesitation that makes it work. But that image doesn't say anything much about the game except "probably cars", so they intelligently included the tagline "The real driving simulator". That tells the customer what they need to know about the game. It's the elevator pitch. The addition of the logo in colour compared to the rest of the monochrome image makes it pop and draws the customers eye to the tag line.

This is how you take a "weird" image and still make it a well designed cover. It's designed as a pattern interrupt, but it still contains all the information needed to tell the customer about the game and get them interested. It just takes the customer half a second more to process, and can probably still be done without breaking stride. It doesn't need ten seconds of picking up the box and scanning the back.

Gran Turismo Sport + constipated driver doesn't do that unless you already know what Gran Turismo is. Which many people do, but they're not the target of a box cover. An eye catching GT logo is all you need for people who know the brand already (which the GTS box still doesn't achieve). The target is people who haven't had exposure and may be seeing the game for the first time.

Box art is art. Art with a purpose, yes, but the artistry is not "incidental", it's how it catches people's attention. Certainly, the intent of the cover is to capture the attention of an audience who would actually be interested in your kind of game, so putting a gorgeous watercolor paining of a unicorn happily prancing underneath rainbows would be a terrible choice if what you're trying to sell is Call of Duty: Kill Unicorns Dead Warfare, regardless of how pretty and artistic that happy unicorn painting may be. But if all your box art says is "Hey I'm that genre you like. Yep, that's it... that's my entire sales pitch", then your box art sucks.

And I was by no means saying GTS's cover was a good example. It isn't. But I don't personally find it to be offensively bad or anything... I definitely think the series has done worse in the past.
 
You severly under estimate how important little details like that are. In a graphic design class I took just for fun (since the other important class I wanted to take was cancelled due to lack of students), my teacher actually stressed a lot of points similar to what @Imari mentioned. In fact, his response to my post with the covers can be also applied to movie posters as well.
No, I disagree.
I appreciate the power of advertising, including cover art.
But initial sales based on cover art will be well and truely overcome at the end of production by reputation of the game itself.

You and I both know that if I posted in the GT6 sales thread that the lack of sales for GT6 was partially due to the cover art, I would be eaten alive.
You can't have it both ways.
 
Let's cut to the chase with this conversation.

Are we suggesting GT3 sold more than GT4 because it has an obscure image of a headlight as opposed to the rear of the Ford GT?
Are we suggesting GT6 would have sold more units if it had a different image other than the Chevy C7?

Seems a long bow to draw in the scheme of things for both those examples to me.

It might not be many more units, but yes. If you're going to spend money on making a box cover, you might as well take a little extra time and do it right rather than just recycling a promotional image that wasn't intended as box art.

But if all your box art says is "Hey I'm that genre you like. Yep, that's it... that's my entire sales pitch", then your box art sucks.

Well, it has to not look like arse but that's kind of a given. It doesn't have to actually have artistic merit though, it just has to sell a product. One doesn't make a box cover for it to be beautiful or emotionally powerful. It's great if it's those things as well, but it's not necessary.

I love the logo of FFX, I think it's amazing both as artistry and as an advertisement:

20100721021039



Something like Mario Kart 8 isn't particularly artistic, but it conveys the information it needs to:

63414-mario-kart-8.png


In some sense, all creative works are artistic. But that doesn't seem particularly useful, so I generally reserve artistic discussion for works that are intended to either showcase some amazing technique, or provoke thought and discussion about something greater than the obvious. A black flag with "Give Women The Vote" on it isn't really artistic. Something like Rosie the Riveter is, because while it's ostensibly inspiring women to work hard, it also gives a look at women as something other than the at the time stereotypical view. Women could be strong, and tough, and get dirty and sweaty and build things just like men. That's an interesting thought and a powerful image.

We_Can_Do_It!.jpg
 
It might not be many more units, but yes. If you're going to spend money on making a box cover, you might as well take a little extra time and do it right rather than just recycling a promotional image that wasn't intended as box art.
I have no issue with that statement.
But I still think it's being over-analysed.

Sure, the 'right' cover art may suck-in a few suckers who don't know GT during the early days of it's life cycle.
The other side of the coin, GT fans won't suddenly decide not to purchase the latest game because they don't like the box art.

When you're talking selling millions of units, the few suckers you can pick-up due to box art, although still statistically and financially on the books, realistically is insignificant when compared to sales, or lack of sales, due to reputation formed of the game months after release, and well beyond any chance to alter the box art.
 
Fair enough, @Imari. The Mario Kart 8 and F1 box art are good examples. I cannot deny that from a functional standpoint, they're very well executed and do everything the publisher needs to do... yet I personally dislike them.

As an avid gamer who doesn't need box art to tell me what a game is, I care more about the artistry than the advertisementry... So naturally that's how I personally judge covers. But a cover can be good in one of those categories while being bad in the other, and certainly to the publisher it's much more important for the functionality to be on point.
 
Let's not forget how fickle and, well, uninformed some people can be when it comes to making a purchase. Years after release some people were STILL not buying the Wii U because they thought it was just an add-on for the Wii. It's not a majority, sure, but companies need to be very careful when marketing their products. I mean just imagine if they just wrote 'GT Sport' on the cover of this game, no 'Gran Turismo' at all. That would not be a wise move at all.
 
Let's not forget how fickle and, well, uninformed some people can be when it comes to making a purchase. Years after release some people were STILL not buying the Wii U because they thought it was just an add-on for the Wii. It's not a majority, sure, but companies need to be very careful when marketing their products. I mean just imagine if they just wrote 'GT Sport' on the cover of this game, no 'Gran Turismo' at all. That would not be a wise move at all.
Which of course is apparent that they haven't.

Personally, I have no issue with the box art.
The game, from what we know, is now based largely around online racing.
The have dropped the car image, dropped the 'Real Driving Simulator' tag, and replaced it with the image of a racing driver.

It seems to me, if wanting for a better word, a very 'honest' or 'genuine' box art image.
 
Which of course is apparent that they haven't.

Well indeed, just pointing out how you can get it badly wrong with box art.

Personally, I have no issue with the box art.
The game, from what we know, is now based largely around online racing.
The have dropped the car image, dropped the 'Real Driving Simulator' tag, and replaced it with the image of a race driver.

It seems to me, if wanting for a better word, a very 'honest' or 'genuine' box art image.

I don't exactly have an issue with the box art, I just found the choice of Black and White on the standard version a little odd and let's be honest, we're only discussing it because we've nothing else worthwhile to talk about right now. It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
 
Well indeed, just pointing out how you can get it badly wrong with box art.

Yep.
Not having a dig, just amplifying that they didn't take that path. 👍


I too would rather be talking about something more 'significant'.
I raised the Gr.4 question, and also the real world to GT Sport physics and tuning comparison, looking to push the discussion in another direction.
But apparently the picture used on the cover is worth talking about more for some. :rolleyes:
So now that's what I'm doing too. :lol:
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone sees colour in general as being special. The gold Steel Book Edition, sure, but not colour full stop. The point of game art is to stand out amongst other games, otherwise they'd all be black boxes with white text on them. Which funnily enough is what the normal GTS cover is.

They're relying on people not only recognising the GT logo but recognising it without the regular red and blue colour.

Wouldn't the GTS cover stand out simply because it isn't colored like the others?

Both MS and SIE seem to prefer the flat monochrome logos for the games now, perhaps the previous 3-d colored logos are considered a bit old-fashioned.
 
Back