Gran Turismo Sport: General Discussion

[Nato_777]

Some people seem not to be too bothered by them.

 

[jm79]

Yes. GT5P. Why couldn't they have launched GT7P last year with 6-7 tracks and 50-60 cars? Sell it for a Prologue price and then build on it with reasonably regular expansion packs.....

This.

Strange that they didn't. Would've been awesome...

And @PzR Slim - I stand by that statement you bolded, 100%, because it's my opinion. So please don't say my opinion is wrong. You seem a little bit too butthurt by GT5&6 that you cannot accept differing opinions of it. So it doesn't put you in a good position to accuse others of the same thing. Nothing personal man, you just seem to be one of the ultra-pissed-off, while also thinking you're fair and balanced. That's all good, your opinion, but it ain't the only one. Try to remember that.

Edit: also I said the GT series is of a consistent quality, not individual games, although I still think all titles so far have been easily worth the money.

 

[PzR Slim]

Some people seem not to be too bothered by them.

I agree some people are not bothered by them. However, how much people are bothered by them does not affect their quality in anyway. They are of very poor quality compared to some of the others assets in the games and therefore it is categorically true that the games are of inconsistent quality.

Now it's perfectly ok to not be bothered about that inconsistent quality, however, when we have certain members defending the game to the hilt and telling us that it's of consistent quality and we are wrong to criticise it, that is just plain wrong.

 

[McLaren]

Its also indicative of GT's quality. Despite the stigma at launch, a harsher critical reception than expected, GT5 sold massive numbers and notably continued to sell massive numbers throughout the years with big activity as well. I saw many people thinking GT6 would be around 2 million and its turns out to be at 5+ million and still selling.

There is an undeniable draw to the GT games that supersedes brandname.

Making up a scenario that attempts to paint the 5 million copies sold as some sort of success doesn't change the fact the game still only sold 40% of its last 2 predecessors.

Nobody had GT6 slated for just 2 million copies. Make believe numbers.

 

[Nato_777]

I agree some people are not bothered by them. However, how much people are bothered by them does not affect their quality in anyway. They are of very poor quality compared to some of the others assets in the games and therefore it is categorically true that the games are of inconsistent quality.

Now it's perfectly ok to not be bothered about that inconsistent quality, however, when we have certain members defending the game to the hilt and telling us that it's of consistent quality and we are wrong to criticise it, that is just plain wrong.

I can't disagree with that. There are of course obvious inconsistences across the board within the games.
However I didn't see it as anyone particularly saying that they were of consistant quality (though I may have missed that post?), rather that they thought they were quality games. In other words they thought they were good games that gave them hours of enjoyment and if that's your measure of a quality game then for you it is despite the flaws.

 

[PzR Slim]

This.

Strange that they didn't. Would've been awesome...

And @PzR Slim - I stand by that statement you bolded, 100%, because it's my opinion. So please don't say my opinion is wrong. You seem a little bit too butthurt by GT5&6 that you cannot accept differing opinions of it. So it doesn't put you in a good position to accuse others of the same thing. Nothing personal man, you just seem to be one of the ultra-pissed-off, while also thinking you're fair and balanced. That's all good, your opinion, but it ain't the only one. Try to remember that.

Edit: also I said the GT series is of a consistent quality, not individual games, although I still think all titles so far have been easily worth the money.

I'm not butt hurt just incredibly saddened and disappointed that the game series that started it all for me has fallen so far. For me the name of GT deserves to be at the very top of the racing game tree. And, for me, it's very far from that on a number of levels.

I respect other peoples opinions, they are fully entitled to them, however, there are certain people on this forum who fail to accept any criticism of the game. I don't for a second mind that they can accept the deficiencies and not let it bother their experience but I will take them to task when they claim nothing is wrong.

 

[jm79]

I'm not butt hurt just incredibly saddened and disappointed that the game series that started it all for me has fallen so far. For me the name of GT deserves to be at the very top of the racing game tree. And, for me, it's very far from that on a number of levels.

I respect other peoples opinions, they are fully entitled to them, however, there are certain people on this forum who fail to accept any criticism of the game. I don't for a second mind that they can accept the deficiencies and not let it bother their experience but I will take them to task when they claim nothing is wrong.

Why dont you just accept that some people's opinions will be hard for you to accept, and deal with that, rather than feel the need to 'take people to task'.

The problem with this forum, sometimes, and it ain't just you, is being 'taken to task' all the bloody time and often, certainly in your case just then with me, by totally misreading my words, in your keenness to 'take me to task'.

Just relax a bit. I get that you're saddened or whatever you feel about it, its totally valid, really. But this very 'task taking' means you're acting in the same way that you find unacceptable in others.

Everything is subjective.

 

[Nato_777]

That's just what happens in 'virtual conversations' like these - you miss all the nuances you would normally have in a face to face conversation that help to convey the persons position and so it's easy to misread what someone is saying.
A little tolerance is often required and questions asked to gain a better picture of where someone is coming from.

 

[Scaff]

Why dont you just accept that some people's opinions will be hard for you to accept, and deal with that, rather than feel the need to 'take people to task'.

The problem with this forum, sometimes, and it ain't just you, is being 'taken to task' all the bloody time and often, certainly in your case just then with me, by totally misreading my words, in your keenness to 'take me to task'.

Just relax a bit. I get that you're saddened or whatever you feel about it, its totally valid, really. But this very 'task taking' means you're acting in the same way that you find unacceptable in others.

Everything is subjective.

Sorry but not everything is subjective.

That standard cars exist is not subjective, that standard tracks exist is not subjective, that GT5 had performance issues is not subjective, that GT6 released without key features it was marketed around is not subjective.

They only subjective element is if these bother you. Anyone can have their own opinion, you don't get to have your own facts.

As such these are legitimate areas of discussion and criticism, and members are free to both raise them or defend them.

If you have an issue with that, then the problem is not with this forum.

 

[jm79]

Sorry but not everything is subjective.

That standard cars exist is not subjective, that standard tracks exist is not subjective, that GT5 had performance issues is not subjective, that GT6 released without key features it was marketed around is not subjective.

They only subjective element is if these bother you. Anyone can have their own opinion, you don't get to have your own facts.

As such these are legitimate areas of discussion and criticism, and members are free to both raise them or defend them.

If you have an issue with that, then the problem is not with this forum.

Point taken, that is fair. But the rest of my post? That was, after all, just one sentence of it.

I was just accused of having a 'wrong' opinion by someone who misread what I was clearly saying. That is a bigger problem here than what you just brought up, imho.

 

[PzR Slim]

Why dont you just accept that some people's opinions will be hard for you to accept, and deal with that, rather than feel the need to 'take people to task'.

The problem with this forum, sometimes, and it ain't just you, is being 'taken to task' all the bloody time and often, certainly in your case just then with me, by totally misreading my words, in your keenness to 'take me to task'.

Just relax a bit. I get that you're saddened or whatever you feel about it, its totally valid, really. But this very 'task taking' means you're acting in the same way that you find unacceptable in others.

Everything is subjective.

It's a discussion forum, that's what we do, discuss. If you don't like the discussion don't get involved in it.

Point taken, that is fair. But the rest of my post? That was, after all, just one sentence of it.

I was just accused of having a 'wrong' opinion by someone who misread what I was clearly saying. That is a bigger problem here than what you just brought up, imho.

Where did I say you were wrong?

 

[Aphelion]

It's a discussion forum, that's what we do, discuss. If you don't like the discussion don't get involved in it.



Where did I say you were wrong?

The dude was talking about the quality of his experience with the game, not the quality of the assets.

 

[jm79]

It's a discussion forum, that's what we do, discuss. If you don't like the discussion don't get involved in it.



Where did I say you were wrong?

Classy.

Discussion is not making up facts or denying them just as much as it is not telling someone their opinion is wrong.

For your convenience:

Me: "So from 1998 to 2016, they have constantly delivered a quality experience."

You: "That is categorically untrue and no matter how many time you lot say it is it wont make it so."

Jeez.

 

[PzR Slim]

Classy.

Discussion is not making up facts or denying them just as much as it is not telling someone their opinion is wrong.

For your convenience:

Me: "So from 1998 to 2016, they have constantly delivered a quality experience."

You: "That is categorically untrue and no matter how many time you lot say it is it wont make it so."

Jeez.

I disagreed that standard cars are a quality experience. Standard cars by measurable values and not subjective opinions are not a quality experience. So to state that, 'they have constantly delivered a quality experience.', is just not true.

You can hold that opinion and I can disagree with it. Like you said nothing personal just a disagreement

 

[jm79]

I disagreed that standard cars are a quality experience. Standard cars by measurable values and not subjective opinions are not a quality experience. So to state that, 'they have constantly delivered a quality experience.', is just not true.

You can hold that opinion and I can disagree with it. Like you said nothing personal just a disagreement

I was talking about the series as a whole. Not any particular aspect.

I totally agree with you on standards btw

 

[Scaff]

Classy.

Discussion is not making up facts or denying them just as much as it is not telling someone their opinion is wrong.

For your convenience:

Me: "So from 1998 to 2016, they have constantly delivered a quality experience."

You: "That is categorically untrue and no matter how many time you lot say it is it wont make it so."

Jeez.

To answer your point neither of those statements is wrong to make, and both are a valid point of debate, as such neither are a problem.

Objective and subjective elements will exist within them, which is why they are both valid.

For example, it is objectively true that prior to GT5, PD did not use a mixture of assets from differing generations.

However how that affects the quality depends on what you mean by quality and to what you attaching it to. If you are referring to the quality of experience (as being consistent) then it's subjective, however if you are referring to the quality of the actual product (as being consistent) then it's objective.

The former is totally personal, the later very measurable; however I would add that when discussing a product it is normal to discuss the measurable rather than the personal, or at the very least be specific in which you are referring to.

@GT6beme seems to want to answer questions on the former only by referring to the later, which is going to result in this kind of mess, hence the questions I have asked him/her.

 

[PzR Slim]

I was talking about the series as a whole. Not any particular aspect.

I do realise that but feel you can't just brush standards under the carpet when looking at the series as a whole. For me, they are such a stain on the series that they have really lowered the quality of what has gone recently. However, probably best to agree to disagree 👍

Edit: Just seen your edit! I do realise you don't see the recent games as all happiness and goodness and fully accept you see that as less as a problem than I do.

 

[jm79]

I do realise that but feel you can't just brush standards under the carpet when looking at the series as a whole. For me, they are such a stain on the series that they have really lowered the quality of what has gone recently. However, probably best to agree to disagree 👍

See my edit above 👍

 

[PzR Slim]

I do realise that but feel you can't just brush standards under the carpet when looking at the series as a whole. For me, they are such a stain on the series that they have really lowered the quality of what has gone recently. However, probably best to agree to disagree 👍

See my edit above 👍

See mine

 

[Samus]

So moving on how about we discuss what, if anything, people think needs improving or changing in GT Sport now it's been delayed?

For me the two mains things:

- They need to introduce more classes of cars, classes to accommodate older machinery to give the car list more variety. Having a game with only 2009+ cars doesn't seem like a great idea, especially for a series that has always had variety. Plus they need more up-to-the-minute race cars. In 2016 the race cars were already mostly out of date, in 2017 even more so. We need the latest LMP1s (Porsche excluded, obviously), we need things like the 488 GT3, the Ford GT3, etc.

- Keep the online stuff but if it's going to be a "full" GT game they have to add more single player functions. I don't expect them to slip in a full fat offline car-collecting and modding career but some sort of structured offline racing series should be added, like pCARS, GRID games etc. Something to give a reason for people like me to really want to buy it.

Graphics are obviously going to be fine, hopefully in conjunction with solid performance. Sounds we know need improving but as far as we know they were working on that anyway.

 

[jm79]

So moving on how about we discuss what, if anything, people think needs improving or changing in GT Sport now it's been delayed?

For me the two mains things:

- They need to introduce more classes of cars, classes to accommodate older machinery to give the car list more variety. Having a game with only 2009+ cars doesn't seem like a great idea, especially for a series that has always had variety. Plus they need more up-to-the-minute race cars. In 2016 the race cars were already mostly out of date, in 2017 even more so. We need the latest LMP1s (Porsche excluded, obviously), we need things like the 488 GT3, the Ford GT3, etc.

- Keep the online stuff but if it's going to be a "full" GT game they have to add more single player functions. I don't expect them to slip in a full fat offline car-collecting and modding career but some sort of structured offline racing series should be added, like pCARS, GRID games etc. Something to give a reason for people like me to really want to buy it.

Graphics are obviously going to be fine, hopefully in conjunction with solid performance. Sounds we know need improving but as far as we know they were working on that anyway.

Agree on both.

The older cars, particularly - having a great time driving them to the limit in AC right now...

I know this is niche as hell, but I'd like an ePrix class. Would be cool...

 

[PzR Slim]

@Samus Agree with all of that, cars list seems to be a bit thin on the ground. And defo think the online only esports basis of the game will get old really quickly for an awful lot of people. However, I've got a real issue with the lack of single player content in gaming in general so that's not just an issue for PD to deal with.

 

[Aphelion]

So moving on how about we discuss what, if anything, people think needs improving or changing in GT Sport now it's been delayed?

For me the two mains things:

- They need to introduce more classes of cars, classes to accommodate older machinery to give the car list more variety. Having a game with only 2009+ cars doesn't seem like a great idea, especially for a series that has always had variety. Plus they need more up-to-the-minute race cars. In 2016 the race cars were already mostly out of date, in 2017 even more so. We need the latest LMP1s (Porsche excluded, obviously), we need things like the 488 GT3, the Ford GT3, etc.

- Keep the online stuff but if it's going to be a "full" GT game they have to add more single player functions. I don't expect them to slip in a full fat offline car-collecting and modding career but some sort of structured offline racing series should be added, like pCARS, GRID games etc. Something to give a reason for people like me to really want to buy it.

Graphics are obviously going to be fine, hopefully in conjunction with solid performance. Sounds we know need improving but as far as we know they were working on that anyway.

Pretty much my thoughts too. 👍

if there is one other thing, it would be add some more sports cars along the lines of F-Type, or maybe the 4C. I can never have enough sports cars!

 

[Samus]

I doubt PD will go this far but I would scrap the generic classes we have now and expand them greatly. Only off the top of my head, but something like:

1960s Sports Cars (Ford GT40, Ferrari 250 etc)
1970s Prototype Sports Cars (Basically the real life Group 6 cars)
1970s/80s Sports Cars (Production based sports cars)
1980s Group B Rally Cars (Real ones, only if rally is done seriously)
1980/90s Group C prototypes
1990s/early 00s GT cars
2000s LMPs, the last of the petrol era
2012+ LMPs, the modern incarnations
2015/6 GT3, as they have
Various eras of touring cars, plenty of selection from 60s onwards, UK, Germany, Europe.

That is just sticking to closed wheel stuff, if they expand to include open wheel there are obviously even more options.

Deleting whichever ones aren't feasible/done in time. That would add so much more variety and there doesn't even have to be that many cars per class, 4-6 would be fine. As soon as you get bored, you move to another one. Unlike what we have now where there doesn't seem to be a lot of scope to really change things up, since everything is modern and very generally speaking, similar to drive. An old GT on cross-ply tyres would be a completely different challenge.

That way you also have far more scope for a simple offline career progression like other games. Sure, it still wouldn't be the classic "Buy a cheap 10,000 car, build it and your garage up while completing events" but It's better than what they have now, and I figure something more people would play anyway. Something new, for GT.

 

[Imari]

People should probably remember that just because you enjoy a game doesn't mean it's of high quality. I enjoyed playing Shift 2, and that's an awful quality game.

Likewise, GT5 and 6 can be quite fun to play depending on your style, but they're not particularly well made games. I certainly wouldn't describe them as high quality considering the list of software and design issues that they've had. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with having fun with them, it's just being honest about the game.

I think the opposite can also be true. DotA2 is an incredibly well made game, but I simply don't enjoy playing it that much. My lack of enjoyment doesn't take anything away from the fact that both in design and execution it's fantastic. It's just not for me.

I think some people could stand to learn to separate their own experience with a game from an objective appraisal of how well made it actually is.

 

[jm79]

People should probably remember that just because you enjoy a game doesn't mean it's of high quality. I enjoyed playing Shift 2, and that's an awful quality game.

Likewise, GT5 and 6 can be quite fun to play depending on your style, but they're not particularly well made games. I certainly wouldn't describe them as high quality considering the list of software and design issues that they've had. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with having fun with them, it's just being honest about the game.

I think the opposite can also be true. DotA2 is an incredibly well made game, but I simply don't enjoy playing it that much. My lack of enjoyment doesn't take anything away from the fact that both in design and execution it's fantastic. It's just not for me.

I think some people could stand to learn to separate their own experience with a game from an objective appraisal of how well made it actually is.

Aye, true, Assetto Corsa is quite a bad game in many ways, but the driving feel is so good it matters none, or very little.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Something I've been thinking about since news of the delay:

If GT Sport isn't released until November 28 or later in 2017, it will make the wait between the PS4's release and the game longer than what we endured going from PS3 release to GT5. And that's without any games dotting the wait, like GT HD or Prologue. It'd still be less time than the wait between GT4 and GT5, but again, it's with absolutely no titles in between to hold people over.

There's also another thing that could be seriously affected by this delay: the FIA championships. With the original release date, many of us assumed the FIA stuff wouldn't really gear up until 2017 anyway. The awards are in December after all, so there would be very little time to get events wrapped up, to say nothing of making sure the servers were up to the task.

I assumed things would get underway in the spring, much like actual motorsports. GT Academy too. But if the game is delayed past summer, I have to worry about what happens to both programs. As one of them is arguably the main reason for this game's existence versus a more traditional GT experience, you have to wonder what sort of contingency plan is in place.

 

[Imari]

There's also another thing that could be seriously affected by this delay: the FIA championships. With the original release date, many of us assumed the FIA stuff wouldn't really gear up until 2017 anyway. The awards are in December after all, so there would be very little time to get events wrapped up, to say nothing of making sure the servers were up to the task.

That's something I hadn't thought about in a while. I wonder how the FIA feels about all this? My understanding was the the FIA champs were originally slated for GT6, then got pushed to GT7/GTS, and now are getting delayed again.

I wonder how it works. If Polyphony is just paying the FIA for the privilege, I imaging that it doesn't matter. If it's more of a collaboration though then maybe at some point the FIA just gets fed up. If all they want is their name out there then maybe it's worth more to them to push a lower selling game but get more releases more frequently.

 

[Heavyduke]

That is categorically untrue and no matter how many time you lot say it is it wont make it so. GT5 & 6 are the very definition of inconsistent quality.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that they are not good games and that at times they can be truly brilliant. However, is that what we all want from GT, does the GT name not deserve more? For me it does, it deserves to be the best out there. And doubly so when we have been told in recent times that delays are so the game can be flawless, perfect or what ever word Kaz or PD choose to use. The last couple of games have been anything but that. Posters like @GT6mebe refuse to accept any criticism of GT even though it's warranted and that's why they get such a hard time.

So, a game that is not able to be any better before a PS3 brakes, is not good. They have a hard time because they work hard on it. Do you expect a large amount of cars put easy? Nope, you have code and make models. Were happy for what we have and were expecting the same reaction with GTS. It's your opinion about the delay but PD/Sony are a big company, they are able to take criticism. If they weren't able to the game would have been canceled.

 

[PzR Slim]

That's something I hadn't thought about in a while. I wonder how the FIA feels about all this? My understanding was the the FIA champs were originally slated for GT6, then got pushed to GT7/GTS, and now are getting delayed again.

I wonder how it works. If Polyphony is just paying the FIA for the privilege, I imaging that it doesn't matter. If it's more of a collaboration though then maybe at some point the FIA just gets fed up. If all they want is their name out there then maybe it's worth more to them to push a lower selling game but get more releases more frequently.

The FIA are desperate for new fans to attend their events and watch their events on TV. Viewing numbers for the vast majority of Motorsport is falling and the younger generation are not interested. FIA are just looking to get there name associated with something that a lot of young people will play.

So, a game that is not able to be any better before a PS3 brakes, is not good. They have a hard time because they work hard on it. Do you expect a large amount of cars put easy? Nope, you have code and make models. Were happy for what we have and were expecting the same reaction with GTS. It's your opinion about the delay but PD/Sony are a big company, they are able to take criticism. If they weren't able to the game would have been canceled.

Really sorry but I can't understand the points you are trying to make.