Gran Turismo Sport: General Discussion

[Johnnypenso]

Correct, I'm calling it a game.

So you're slotting into a category that makes distinction meaningless.

 

[Lain]

So you're slotting into a category that makes distinction meaningless.

Perhaps a more apt term would be "simcade", I just personally think the term is silly.

GT isn't striving for 100% realistic simulation in all facets, and that's okay. If they want the driving to be fairly realistic but the crashing to be completely unreal, that's their prerogative.

 

[super_gt]

Correct, I'm calling it a game.

I see the word simulator,not a game.

Don't see how one could not call it inherently wrong to be able ride a wall in a simulation and not have it affect your speed at all.

This must be that new real physics which makes it easier to drive.

 

[jm79]

Perhaps a more apt term would be "simcade", I just personally think the term is silly.

GT isn't striving for 100% realistic simulation in all facets, and that's okay. If they want the driving to be fairly realistic but the crashing to be completely unreal, that's their prerogative.

I was sort of in that damage camp, until today, and I saw some footage of BeamNG:drive - now that would be amazing in GT, in any game! But there must be licensing issues around full damage. I know we've gone over this before, but the mangled mess they get in sometimes in that 'game', I just can't see it...

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I disagree with your idea that a FIA sanctioned esport game NEEDS realistic crash physics. If the driving physics were a complete joke, now that'd be a problem.

And no, I'm not confusing anything. It's not a failure of emulation, it's a conscious design choice to not emulate real life physics when it comes to crash behavior. And such a choice has both pros (which I covered) and cons (which you & @sems4arsenal covered), therefore it's not an inherently right or wrong choice.

Yeah it does, don't expect to foster any sort of fair competition, if you think that the FIA is going to put their name on a game for longer than a single title, with the idea of best demo derby wins, then you don't know the FIA. We're talking about the biggest promoter of road safety, and while this is just a game to you and others, it a big enough territory to expand their name and goals. Those seeing a serious investment due to eSports or any PR will have some reservations when many streaming to watch a tournament of supposed high caliber get only slightly better than a Crashcar GT lobby of today.

Would you care to elaborate on how, in your experience, "competitive" online racing games and the likes of GT5/6 differ?

I'm attacking this from a purely theoretical design perspective, and have virtually no experience with online racing in any capacity.

Yes easily, iRacing doesn't have a problem where some dill weed wants to play reverse line up on the track and chicken against other cars. In fact the rating system all but eliminates it, and so do those other games as well with competitive seriousness, and why not when some actually offer cash or monetary incentives. Ideally if you know eSports, when someone decides to go into that platform with it they decide to foster a more bigger competition than what even GTA does, with endorsements and even decent cash pools, people expect a higher caliber. If PD isn't prepared to do that, then they wont make it very long in said bracket.

 

[AKps3]

👍

Anyhow i stated that there's a good chance that GTS will release exactly how it was presented so far, and that GT players shouldn't get their hopes up that the game will be revamped with this delay. Kaz does his own thing, always has always will.

I hope that's not as provocative now?

Kaz and PD are the creators of GT so they have the right to do what ever they want.
You don't like the product? Fine. Don't buy It.

 

[Lain]

I see the word simulator,not a game.

And GT's been called the "Real Driving Simulator" since it's inception, that doesn't make it true. It's a nice fluffy PR label.

And clearly they're focusing on the driving aspect, meaning how your inputs translate to the car's movement. If the car responds to your inputs how you'd expect it to, that's a realistic driving simulation.

I was sort of in that damage camp, until today, and I saw some footage of BeamNG:drive - now that would be amazing in GT, in any game! But there must be licensing issues around full damage. I know we've gone over this before, but the mangled mess they get in sometimes in that 'game', I just can't see it...

Yeah, BeamNG:drive is awesome and I'd love to see that kind of damage in GT. 👍
(FYI for those who haven't picked up on it... I'm not necessarily saying I LIKE where damage/crash physics are at in GT, merely that I think it's a valid design choice to let them stay where they are)

Yeah it does, don't expect to foster any sort of fair competition, if you think that the FIA is going to put their name on a game for longer than a single title, with the idea of best demo derby wins, then you don't know the FIA. We're talking about the biggest promoter of road safety, and while this is just a game to you and others, it a big enough territory to expand their name and goals. Those seeing a serious investment due to eSports or any PR will have some reservations when many streaming to watch a tournament of supposed high caliber get only slightly better than a Crashcar GT lobby of today.

I've already gone over how I think there can be fair competition without realistic crashing or damage, and why I don't believe that such features necessarily promote fair competition either.

You say I don't know the FIA, and you're right... yet here we are, with the FIA putting their weight behind GTS. Why don't we wait and see how the competition fares when the game comes out before preemptively assuming it'll be a crashfest.

Yes easily, iRacing doesn't have a problem where so dill weed wants to play reverse line up on the track and chicken against other cars. In fact the rating system all but eliminates it, and so do those other games as well with competitive seriousness, and why not when some actually offer cash or monetary incentives. Ideally if you know eSports, when someone decides to go into that platform with it they decide to foster a more bigger competition than what even GTA does, with endorsements and even decent cash pools, people expect a higher caliber. If PD isn't prepared to do that, then they wont make it very long in said bracket.

Could other factors be at play, though? Correlation doesn't equal causation. Perhaps the fact that the likes of iRacing see more serious drivers is because they're more niche titles targeted at such an audience? Other factors probably exist too... you even said that the rating system of iRacing helps clear out the dill weeds, and we already know GTS will be taking a stab at a rating system too.

Is Forza in the same tier as these other "competitive" racing games? It's got a reasonably robust damage model.

 

[mister dog]

Kaz and PD are the creators of GT so they have the right to do what ever they want.
You don't like the product? Fine. Don't buy It.

That's not the point... The point is that people are already speculating that this delay will be used to change the game around.

 

[dimassa19]

I'm looking forward to this race on Sunday at TGS actually, those live races at the Copper Box were awesome. And will be interesting to see if they've made any improvements to the way these things are 'broadcast'... Really liked that immediate replay function for the incidents.

Shame @Tom isn't in Japan

Speaking in improvements... Well, i just watch the videos of TGS in the TV screen, and i did not see the render delay in the trees...

 

[TokoTurismo]

Kaz and PD are the creators of GT so they have the right to do what ever they want.

Just like how they can release it whenever they want.

 

[JKgo]

That's not the point... The point is that people are already speculating that this delay will be used to change the game around.

...I agree. The wording on the delay notice made it sound like there were features PDI wanted on GT:S that they couldn't nail down yet and needs more time to do so.

If they add new stuff, sure, that will be great. But to my knowledge no promises were given. Keep the expectations reasonable, fellas.

 

[AKps3]

That's not the point... The point is that people are already speculating that this delay will be used to change the game around.

Where is the problem if people are speculating? Better speculate than "hate"(sorry I can't find the right word)
At the end of the day when the game release we will see how It is and what they changed.

Just like how they can release it whenever they want.

Sorry I don't get It.
Sure they can release a game when ever they want.

 

[mister dog]

Where is the problem if people are speculating? Better speculate than "hate"

Maybe you will have noticed that i'm speculating too? There isn't much else to do until the next news flash and there's a good chance that will take a while.

...I agree. The wording on the delay notice made it sound like there were features PDI wanted on GT:S that they couldn't nail down yet and needs more time to do so.

If they add new stuff, sure, that will be great. But to my knowledge no promises were given. Keep the expectations reasonable, fellas.

Yeah that's my guess. All they have shown so far is the same cars and tracks for months. No way they were going to finish up with the other 80% of the game hence the long delay.

 

[AKps3]

Maybe you will have noticed that i'm speculating too? There isn't much else to do until the next news flash and there's a good chance that will take a while.

Don't get me wrong I don't mean you or anyone specific and i wrote "hate" because I can't find the right word

 

[super_gt]

And clearly they're focusing on the driving aspect, meaning how your inputs translate to the car's movement. If the car responds to your inputs how you'd expect it to, that's a realistic driving simulation.

The cars do not react to my inputs in the way that I expect,it seems my expectations are too high.

 

[Lain]

The cars do not react to my inputs in the way that I expect,it seems my expectations are too high.

I'm not saying they do or do not. Just saying that under Polyphony's view of what a "driving simulator" semantically entails, crashing is separate.

 

[05XR8]

How did that Super GT GT300 race go at TGS?

 

[Johnnypenso]

And clearly they're focusing on the driving aspect, meaning how your inputs translate to the car's movement. If the car responds to your inputs how you'd expect it to, that's a realistic driving simulation.

Realism is measured against reality not expectation. On that level the latest GT fails on more than one important aspect of simulation.

 

[Lain]

Realism is measured against reality not expectation. On that level the latest GT fails on more than one important aspect of simulation.

Car responds how you'd expect it to [in real life]

... is what I was saying.

And I'm making zero claims as to how realistic GT is in that regard.

 

[dacc10]

Anyhow i stated that there's a good chance that GTS will release exactly how it was presented so far, and that GT players shouldn't get their hopes up that the game will be revamped with this delay. Kaz does his own thing, always has always will.

I hope that's not as provocative now?

Well, lots of people said similar things when GTS was showed at Copper Box... the game would suck, and wouldn't improve over what was shown there. They had to swallow that the next time the game appeared...

But it's impressive how a little demo on a game show already means the game will look exactly like that.

I'd argue that most people who buy GT games wouldn't care if it got more or less realistic, with the right learning tools and driving aids you can hold beginners hands. People buy GT game on the merits of having a huge, beautiful, car collecting RPG and because it's a GT game,

Sounds, AI, etc are also some of the reasons they need to get back to the drawing board (damage was just an example).

You are right, a great percentage either wouldn't care about the physics or would be happy with a small improvement (usually to the feel of the car). But they do care about the playability of the game. If every time one inch of the tire touches grass or sand, the car spins and the driver is obligued to restart the race, they won't enjoy the experience, and will quickly quit playing.
An option to tone down the physics doesn't make sense either, because those players won't be able to learn the game as it is. It's not a change in difficulty, it's a change in the feel of the game as a whole.

I agree with you that the crash physics need to improve, but that doesn't mean the game needs to get back to stage 0. The damage is apart of the crashing physics. You can have good crashing physics, with zero damage, and vice versa.
Crashing physics are a priority, compared to the damage model. For me and probably a lot of others, the damage in GT6 is already good enough, the crashing isn't. They don't need to get back to the drawing board for something so little and that might be subject to change until release.

The sounds have been improving, and they might improve even further as far as we know, so no need to "back to the drawing board" with something that they are still working on. The AI needs improvement, sure, just like many things, but for what we know, they are subject to change, specially when the game was delayed and they will have more time to improve all that stuff.

Honestly, this Forum could give better feedback, instead of huge texts stating the games needs this and that, a topic to list the good and the bad things about the game (so far). Easier for anyone inside PD to access. With something as simple as checking a positives/negatives list would make their lives easier...

 

[TokoTurismo]

Sorry I don't get It.
Sure they can release a game when ever they want.

Was just going by what you just said, that is all.

 

[Oreca 1998]

Not that I hate these tracks, in fact i like them.......but

I already read what Kaz said about the making of GTS which includes him saying: " We looked back at some of the older GT games, etc. ". This actually gave me a bit of hope that PD (will) bring some tracks from previous GT games such as Seattle, New York, Hong Kong & SS11. But this still remains a dream that can happen, but the chances of its happening are quite low except for Seattle which I totally think it'll be revived.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I've already gone over how I think there can be fair competition without realistic crashing or damage, and why I don't believe that such features necessarily promote fair competition either.

Once again no one is asking for even realistic aesthetics of damage, or whatever else you seem to be driving at. They do promote fair driving if they didn't it wouldn't work in more supposedly realistic games. If you can't keep the car on track and are thoroughly beat in competition due to it, you didn't deserve to be at that level to begin with.

You say I don't know the FIA, and you're right... yet here we are, with the FIA putting their weight behind GTS. Why don't we wait and see how the competition fares when the game comes out before preemptively assuming it'll be a crashfest.

No one is but it's ironic that you are using crashes as an onset for an argument and then telling me to back away from the thing you set the tone of... This makes me think you don't really understand mine and others arguing against you.

Could other factors be at play, though? Correlation doesn't equal causation. Perhaps the fact that the likes of iRacing see more serious drivers is because they're more niche titles targeted at such an audience? Other factors probably exist too... you even said that the rating system of iRacing helps clear out the dill weeds, and we already know GTS will be taking a stab at a rating system too.

Well I mean that audience isn't so niche, eSports is massive, iRacing has a good size community. What GTS is trying to be is a console version of iRacing it's pretty obvious to the point one doesn't even need to argue it, how they are tackling it is a different question and what is really being argued. So with the factors of a rating system in GTS a target at competitive game-play and set up different from past GT...it starts to beg the question why have such physics if your trying to promote serious driving? See how you can really only have serious driving by having a realistic physics engine that promotes it?

Is Forza in the same tier as these other "competitive" racing games? It's got a reasonably robust damage model.

T10 have never claimed or seemed to be targeting eSports with their games, especially not the point of making an individual game. In fact it's the opposite they set up with another group and make a go anywhere, open world game.

Also you kind of prove the point I've made in this and prior post to you about how you seem stuck on actual emulation of damage. Not the argument here, so in reality who cares what Forza does, so why bring it up?

 

[Lain]

Once again no one is asking for even realistic aesthetics of damage, or whatever else you seem to be driving at. They do promote fair driving if they didn't it wouldn't work in more supposedly realistic games. If you can't keep the car on track and are thoroughly beat in competition due to it, you didn't deserve to be at that level to begin with.

Uh, I'm not driving at anything. By "crashing", I mean how the motion of the car is impacted by a collision. Not damage, aesthetic or mechanical.

I've only brought damage into the discussion (and almost always tacked on as "and damage") in response to other people's arguments against my initial post which only mentioned crashing.

No one is but it's ironic that you are using crashes as an onset for an argument and then telling me to back away from the thing you set the tone of... This makes me think you don't really understand mine and others arguing against you.

I get it, or at least I think I do.

So let me try a recap:

I'm arguing that unrealistic crashing physics are acceptable in GTS.
You're arguing that it's not, because it'll turn it into a crashfest.
I'm saying "we'll see", with the belief that it won't be a crashfest due to other game mechanics (such as player rankings).

Am I more or less on the mark here?

Well I mean that audience isn't so niche, eSports is massive, iRacing has a good size community. What GTS is trying to be is a console version of iRacing it's pretty obvious to the point one doesn't even need to argue it, how they are tackling it is a different question and what is really being argued. So with the factors of a rating system in GTS a target at competitive game-play and set up different from past GT...it starts to beg the question why have such physics if your trying to promote serious driving? See how you can really only have serious driving by having a realistic physics engine that promotes it?

eSports is massive, no denying that.

Racing eSports, however... significantly less so. iRacing does have a pretty decent community from what I can tell, but it's still nowhere near an eSports juggernaut.

Realistic crashing (and, yes, damage too) does encourage clean driving, I'm not denying that. But it's not the only way to encourage clean driving, and as such it's not necessarily a requirement to have serious driving and good sportsmanship. A rating system encourages clean driving just fine too. And the thing is... for beginners, realistic crashing doesn't encourage clean driving. It encourages giving up.

T10 have never claimed or seemed to be targeting eSports with their games, especially not the point of making an individual game. In fact it's the opposite they set up with another group and make a go anywhere, open world game.

Also you kind of prove the point I've made in this and prior post to you about how you seem stuck on actual emulation of damage. Not the argument here, so in reality who cares what Forza does, so why bring it up?

As I've already covered in this post, I'm primarily talking about crashing. Not damage. I've just been including "and damage" as a way to cover all my bases.

I did misspeak with my Forza example since I only mentioned damage. The point I was making that reasonably realistic driving and crashing (and yes, damage) don't automatically foster good sportsmanship on-track.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I get it, or at least I think I do.

So let me try a recap:

I'm arguing that unrealistic crashing physics are acceptable in GTS.
You're arguing that it's not, because it'll turn it into a crashfest.
I'm saying "we'll see", with the belief that it won't be a crashfest due to other game mechanics (such as player rankings).

Am I more or less on the mark here?

No it's a bit less, I'm not saying it will be a crashfest, what I'm saying is if the same physics employed in previous games in regards to how the cars deal with other objects (walls, other cars, terrain even), and it proves beneficial without penalty then it undermines the game. And the forum on which it's trying to elevate to.

eSports is massive, no denying that.

Racing eSports, however... significantly less so. iRacing does have a pretty decent community from what I can tell, but it's still nowhere near an eSports juggernaut.

Cause it's never been promoted as one, the only thing that has ever been done is low key sanctioned events through Indy, NASCAR and V8 supercars. I think out of those NASCAR is the only one that still sanctions a iRacing championship, but the cash pool is significantly smaller than say Hearthstone. And while on that topic the reason racing is not a big eSport venue, especially with iRacing, is because of what you need to compete. You need a decent rig for one especially against the top players and a good rating. If I wanted to win a hearthstone, all I need is my comp of any caliber that can run the game decently. Now if you switch that to console play, you don't need to be so intensive, and when you make it a big company like Sony hosting with FIA backing the cash could be significantly bigger than 15k.

Edit: there are others actually http://www.iracing.com/nascar-peak-antifreeze-series/

Realistic crashing (and, yes, damage too) does encourage clean driving, I'm not denying that. But it's not the only way to encourage clean driving, and as such it's not necessarily a requirement to have serious driving and good sportsmanship. A rating system encourages clean driving just fine too. And the thing is... for beginners, realistic crashing doesn't encourage clean driving. It encourages giving up.

What other ways promote clean driving then? If you're not clean driving or being careful then what other ways do you promote yourself as a clean driver...crashing and poor etiquette on the track actually show the opposite of clean. There is literally no other way...

As I've already covered in this post, I'm primarily talking about crashing. Not damage. I've just been including "and damage" as a way to cover all my bases.

I did misspeak with my Forza example since I only mentioned damage. The point I was making that reasonably realistic driving and crashing (and yes, damage) don't automatically foster good sportsmanship on-track.

Why? Because just as I pointed out with GT's prior, they don't have to have good sportsmanship there is nothing at stake or forcing them too. There is no rating system, there is no competitive game play on an eSport level with a cash prize, and most of all there isn't a physics benefit to actually riding walls or bouncing off other cars.

 

[Imari]

The thing is that if "crashing" or wall riding is faster, then in competition people will do it. If there's a penalty involved, then they'll optimise their usage of this tactic to situations where the benefit outweighs the penalty.

Or you could just say "this is a thing that we don't want in our game because it looks unprofessional", and design the game such that it's never optimal to use these tactics. And if that means that it becomes too challenging for the amateurs, then perhaps look at designing something to help them that doesn't also affect high level play.

I mean, if GTS ends up having events with the sort of driving that was shown at Copper Box, that hardly seems like a good showcase for video games as legitimate forms of motorsport.

 

[Scaff]

One thing that does seem to get forgotten is that GTS is not the first console racing eSport pioneer.

PCars ran an eSport series and WRC5 is currently running a series that is shadowing this year's WRC with a public grand final at an FIA event (Rally Wales).

What GTS will be the first in regard to is the set-up of an FIA backed eSport series that doesn't shadow a real series, but rather is a series in its own right.

What remains to be seen is how the public will take to that, as for some the link to the real series may be a part of the attraction. I think that both the FIA and Sony/PD are hoping that the marketing success that the GTS has provided can be replicated.

 

[sircarltonlotus]

Thing is though, if wall riding gets punished by negative scores, which they say it will be, then it won't matter that it's faster. I've read somewhere that it won't matter if you're the fastest person on earth, if you drive dirty or wall ride your way to victory there will come a point where certain top level FIA events become locked. If the problem is these GTA live events I see absolutely no problem. It's a pity this year's GTA was chaotic but I don't think it's a basis for saying GTSport will be a failure unless it's crash physics work properly. We haven't even seen anything of the planned damage model yet anyway, wall riding may well result in your car losing overall performance. The mechanical damage on GT5 was pretty good.

 

[NLxAROSA]

What GTS will be the first in regard to is the set-up of an FIA backed eSport series that doesn't shadow a real series, but rather is a series in its own right.

If PD can combine that with broadcasting/spectating (not the same as simply streaming) and mix GT Academy in, they could have a winner on their hands. But it all depends on the execution.

 

[emula]

they absolutely need to fix the impacts between cars. Why why why do not they do it?