Gran Turismo Sport: General Discussion

[GordonS]

Trees look uglier than in GTS though (love those GTS trees)
But yes AC is far from ugly and this statement is even weirder when throwing PCARS in the mix, which received unanimous praise for its eye candy.

The in-car view was very smooth indeed but its replays (PS4) were horrific, much worse than GT5's or GT6's.

 

[mister dog]

The in-car view was very smooth indeed but its replays (PS4) were horrific, much worse than GT5's or GT6's.

Stuttering right? But that doesn't make the graphics ugly

 

[KiroKai]

Begging the question, when will Polyphony decide to show more content?

When it's ready.

 

[GTEFGHA]

PSX would be a resonable place for them to announce a new release date, and maybe show some new content but then again this is PD we're talking about...

 

[azeeza]

Hope a new trailer with livered cars

 

[Samus]

Based on past history you really should expect nothing, saves on the disappointment. I actually remember this event last year, we were all sure GT would show up, it didn't. OK they're listed this year but still, expect nothing is the best approach.

 

[RACECAR]

Its not so much about them "changing their vision". They can still infuse GT7 with elements of GT Sport. If their desire was to create an online matchmaking service, ALA Dota & CSGO, it is still possible to create a strong single element player in GT7 and then incorporate GT Sport in the online segment of it. I don't see why it doesn't make sense. Also, if they bring back single player mode, its called listening to your fanbase. it makes sense to me

It doesn't make sense because this is supposed to be a new direction for GT. At this stage in development (and in this time of bug riddled games), The best way PD can "Listen to the fans" is to get the game finished and released instead of delaying it further (another issue GT tends to have).

I get people want a single player but its totally unrealistic to expect it at this point and even more so to rename it "GT7".

 

[queleuleu]

Based on past history you really should expect nothing, saves on the disappointment. I actually remember this event last year, we were all sure GT would show up, it didn't. OK they're listed this year but still, expect nothing is the best approach.

Wise reminder. Poly is currently in Ninja mode : we'll support ps4 pro, thanks, bye. Not a single screenshot to illustrate the article on their official website.

 

[GRAN007]

good thing come when you have the best in thing and GT is the BEST for playstation
if look back when GT came out 25 year ago it was 5 year from GT 1 TO GT2 TO GT3
and how long do it make a car on GT5 will here what i was told SIX MONTH
THANK YOU

 

[Grandea GTR]

good thing come when you have the best in thing and GT is the BEST for playstation
if look back when GT came out 25 year ago it was 5 year from GT 1 TO GT2 TO GT3
and how long do it make a car on GT5 will here what i was told SIX MONTH
THANK YOU

....whuh?

 

[another_jakhole]

good thing come when you have the best in thing and GT is the BEST for playstation
if look back when GT came out 25 year ago it was 5 year from GT 1 TO GT2 TO GT3
and how long do it make a car on GT5 will here what i was told SIX MONTH
THANK YOU

It took 6 months in the PS3 days but nothing has been revealed about the timeframe with the PS4.

Just a heads up, you'll have to use punctuation or they'll kick you in the shins.

 

[chengman]

good thing come when you have the best in thing and GT is the BEST for playstation
if look back when GT came out 25 year ago it was 5 year from GT 1 TO GT2 TO GT3
and how long do it make a car on GT5 will here what i was told SIX MONTH
THANK YOU

Run on sentence holy crap.

 

[GRAN007]

just what feel sorry

 

[daus26]

Stuttering right? But that doesn't make the graphics ugly

Guys, don't take too much into my ugly statement lol. It's just my way of stating how GT may have to look like to pull off the all the things like dynamic weather, time, night, and 60fps. We have some people here saying there is no excuse PD can't do it while mentioning Pcars or Assetto Corsa as examples. While they're not exactly ugly, imagine had GT looked like P cars or Assetto Corsa for this generation, GT would absolutely be scrutinized for it. Same with Forza. GT and Forza holds a certain (higher) degree of standard when it comes to visuals.

Again, it's just an opinion thing and I may have went too far to say they're ugly, but personally I just find a last generation GT game to be more pleasing to see than a current gen PC or AC game. Every time I see the replay in PC or AC, it speaks old, especially AC. Project Cars look really good, maxed out on PC btw, but the console version isn't close to it imo. And please don't make me do comparison video or pics.

 

[DingoDile]

Guys, do you think PD will do anything about GT 20th anniversary? GTS will be available in 2017, 20 years after 1997 (GT1 in Japan) and it's a good opportunity for celebrating this with GTS.
Although 3 years ago, PD considered GT1 EU/NA release date (1998) for birthday and called 2013 the 15th anniversary, but we won't have a GT in 2018 and maybe this time they'll celebrate the real birthday!

 

[Mike_grpA]

Exactly... Sony is the problem since gt5.. If you remember because of Sony PD late to finish the game because sony wants to promote the 3D era with one of the best games...
Also i thing that GTS delay because of the VR... Sony wants again to promote VR with GTS..

Yeah, PD keep making stupid choices in their games, and taking forever to make them, but it's all Sony's fault, sure. Convenient that you'll blame GT5's delay on Sony wanting 3D, whilst ignoring all the many other useless gimmicks PD put in their games. This is the Dev that put a feature in their game that only a small handful of people in the entire world could actually use. The same dev that took two whole years after releasing a game to put a course maker in it, after the previous game already having one that wasn't much worse. PD don't need Sony's help to take forever to make their games, they're desperately slow enough all by themselves.

I like more the gt6 graphics from ps4 version of pcars...
Also i thing is better on some things like lighting...
What are you talking about? Yes the demo that we try me and to many people here doesn't have whether or nigh/day..
But pcars even with no whether or day/night circle can't come close to the graphics of this early demo of GTS...
My opinion
GTS is delay and it will take to much time to finish because os Sony and VR...
Sony wants good games to promote the VR...
We live again this with GT5 and 3D..

Pcars has better graphics than GT6, but more importantly, the visuals in Pcars are actually consistent. The very best looking of the premium cars in GT6 are probably better than the cars in Pcars, but only on the outside. Pcars has everything modeled, even under the bonnet and such, for it's damage model. GT6's premiums are just an empty shell, which is why PD never bothered trying to make a half decent damage model, because they'd have to make all the car models again from scratch.

Also, saying Pcars without weather or day/night doesn't have as good graphics as GTS is a bit weird, since the whole point I made in the comment you quoted was that I would prefer the game has dynamic time and weather than photorealistic visuals, and that a racing sim doesn't need any better graphics than Pcars has. Kaz chasing once again after having the best visuals is the reason the game is taking forever, and the reason it'll likely once again not be a great sim. It'll be a pretty photomode sim, not a good racing sim.

Blaming Sony and VR for GTS is missing the point that PD literally always take this long to make games. It wasn't just with GT5 and now GTS, they take ages every time, and every time their approach is the same: Make the game as pretty as possible, and end up with buggy unrealistic physics.

 

[Mike_grpA]

This is where you can appreciate PD on how they can just manage to push every console.

Any dev can push a console to it's limit. The tyre model SMS made for Pcars by itself was so complex it maxed out the WiiU's processor without even factoring in the rest of the game. It's common knowledge that the XB1 and PS4 both struggled to run Pcars, hence the ridiculous amount of bugs in the console versions. It took SMS ages to even get it to a reasonably stable state, because it pushed the consoles so hard.

The trick is to prioritise. If you're making a racing simulator, it's probably a good idea to use the bulk of the horsepower of the system on physics calculations, instead of prioritising graphics over everything else.

imagine had GT looked like P cars or Assetto Corsa for this generation, GT would absolutely be scrutinized for it.

I can't speak for everyone, but I for one would applaud PD if they finally stopped prioritising graphics over gameplay. From a lot of what I read on this forum, I imagine a lot of people would rejoice if PD stopped focusing so much on graphics and put their focus on the gameplay and physics. It would make a refreshing change, and would, I imagine, help PD regain the console sim crown. As it is, they've fallen behind Turn 10, and now have to also compete against SMS and Kunos in the future of console sim racing devs.

Edit: Whoops, sorry for the double post

 

[Imari]

good thing come when you have the best in thing and GT is the BEST for playstation
if look back when GT came out 25 year ago it was 5 year from GT 1 TO GT2 TO GT3
and how long do it make a car on GT5 will here what i was told SIX MONTH
THANK YOU

Firstly, GT isn't the best for PS4. It doesn't have a game to be the best with.
Secondly, 1997 to 2016 is not 25 years. Check your math.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Firstly, GT isn't the best for PS4. It doesn't have a game to be the best with.
Secondly, 1997 to 2016 is not 25 years. Check your math.

Yeah that was an odd post, it also wasn't five years from GT1 to GT2, or GT2 to GT3. It was 2 years between GT1 and GT2, and only a year and a half between 2 and 3. After that it was something like 3 and a half to 4 years between each game.

 

[jm79]

I can't speak for everyone, but I for one would applaud PD if they finally stopped prioritising graphics over gameplay. From a lot of what I read on this forum, I imagine a lot of people would rejoice if PD stopped focusing so much on graphics and put their focus on the gameplay and physics. It would make a refreshing change, and would, I imagine, help PD regain the console sim crown. As it is, they've fallen behind Turn 10, and now have to also compete against SMS and Kunos in the future of console sim racing devs.

I disagree on this point - being similar to all the other dry sims, with lifeless graphics (or adequate graphics, perhaps) is not something worthwhile to aim for in quite a crowded genre. You have to be unique, and being beautiful is a damn good way of doing this.

Eye candy is important - the format in racing games is broadly established, so the way the games are presented becomes more crucial. Each generation is worth it purely for the visuals. Just my humble opinion, of course, but it's certainly a large part of the appeal of the GT franchise.

Settling into console sim-racer visual mediocrity purely to achieve parity in technical simulation terms with some distinctly average games wouldn't be refreshing, it would be a disaster, and I, for one, would certainly not rejoice.

 

[Imari]

I disagree on this point - being similar to all the other dry sims, with lifeless graphics (or adequate graphics, perhaps) is not something worthwhile to aim for in quite a crowded genre. You have to be unique, and being beautiful is a damn good way of doing this.

Being beautiful is hardly a unique way of distinguishing a game. It's basically the lowest common denominator when a game can't distinguish itself in any other way.

Eye candy is important - the format in racing games is broadly established, so the way the games are presented becomes more crucial. Each generation is worth it purely for the visuals. Just my humble opinion, of course, but it's certainly a large part of the appeal of the GT franchise.

How about if each generation was worth it for the expansion of gameplay that it allowed? More computing power allowing deformable/destructable objects and terrain, realistic weather and physics models, great AI, and all the other things that might make you feel like you were racing in a real, vibrant, evolving world.

That'd sure be interesting as opposed to a beautiful but shallow game where cars bounce off walls and each other without any serious interaction.

Settling into console sim-racer visual mediocrity purely to achieve parity in technical simulation terms with some distinctly average games wouldn't be refreshing, it would be a disaster, and I, for one, would certainly not rejoice.

You make it sound like the choice is between being a mediocre simulation that looks pretty and an average simulation that doesn't.

What if someone made a good simulation that was FUN? Graphics be damned, just make it so enjoyable that the graphics don't actually matter. Revolutionary thought, I know.

 

[jm79]

Being beautiful is hardly a unique way of distinguishing a game. It's basically the lowest common denominator when a game can't distinguish itself in any other way.



How about if each generation was worth it for the expansion of gameplay that it allowed? More computing power allowing deformable/destructable objects and terrain, realistic weather and physics models, great AI, and all the other things that might make you feel like you were racing in a real, vibrant, evolving world.

That'd sure be interesting as opposed to a beautiful but shallow game where cars bounce off walls and each other without any serious interaction.



You make it sound like the choice is between being a mediocre simulation that looks pretty and an average simulation that doesn't.

What if someone made a good simulation that was FUN? Graphics be damned, just make it so enjoyable that the graphics don't actually matter. Revolutionary thought, I know.

Well that's the thing about this, isn't it? I don't actually disagree about any of what you said, really. Also, this is a brilliant way of putting what we all want: "...make you feel like you were racing in a real, vibrant, evolving world" Nailed it.

It's just priorities. With the genre spread across multiple generations and multiple platforms, the 'ideal' racing game will always be elusive, so you merely have preferences. My preference for GT is for visuals first. And I stick to the idea that it is a big part of the appeal of GT, broadly-speaking. I think I've spent an age in photomode, purely because it's so damn gorgeous.

There are other games for other things. That's OK, I think.

 

[dacc10]

The problem is, this is still a game that aims to please a huge player base, not just the sim player base. And for that, graphics matter. We just need to go back a few months, to the copper box event, when people trashed the game's graphics, through non-direct feed youtube videos. This just shows how much graphics matter to the casual gamer.
For the physics, it's usually a hard thing to master and make it fun for everyone, at the same time. Sure, the more realistic the better, in theory.
I totally support better AI, overall better physics and better damage than we had in GT6. But when it comes to physics, all that complexity that is often mentioned in this forums, less grip outside the racing line, changes in grip on every single type of pavement/time of day/temperature, brake fade, and so on, should not be a priority for a game like this. The priority, should always be making the cars feel realistically different from each other. This is where the complexity in physics should go. Old cars should feel like old cars. FF cars should feel different from each other. This is how GT should be unique, having a fairly diversified car list (well, it was diversified atleast, let's see if the same happens post release with DLCs) and all the cars feel different.

A good comparison, would be Battlefield. It could be extra realistic, they have the team and budget to do so. Yet they chose not to. Why? Mainly because ultra realism would kill the casual fanbase that corresponds to the majority of the sales. A great example of their approach in the opposite way to realism, is the amount of automatic weapons in a WWI game. Sure, they could, for the sake of realism, make the game full of non-automatic weapons, but then it would be a franchise killer when it comes to sales, because most players are still used to the mainstream FPS where they can "spray-n-pray" all day long and does not require a monstruous amount of skill to succeed. Hell, people already complain about the snipers being too OP, when, in real life, they are actually that dangerous (hard to master, but when you do, it's really effective).

 

[nocturnalgrey]

The problem is, this is still a game that aims to please a huge player base, not just the sim player base. And for that, graphics matter. We just need to go back a few months, to the copper box event, when people trashed the game's graphics, through non-direct feed youtube videos. This just shows how much graphics matter to the casual gamer.
For the physics, it's usually a hard thing to master and make it fun for everyone, at the same time. Sure, the more realistic the better, in theory.
I totally support better AI, overall better physics and better damage than we had in GT6. But when it comes to physics, all that complexity that is often mentioned in this forums, less grip outside the racing line, changes in grip on every single type of pavement/time of day/temperature, brake fade, and so on, should not be a priority for a game like this. The priority, should always be making the cars feel realistically different from each other. This is where the complexity in physics should go. Old cars should feel like old cars. FF cars should feel different from each other. This is how GT should be unique, having a fairly diversified car list (well, it was diversified atleast, let's see if the same happens post release with DLCs) and all the cars feel different.

A good comparison, would be Battlefield. It could be extra realistic, they have the team and budget to do so. Yet they chose not to. Why? Mainly because ultra realism would kill the casual fanbase that corresponds to the majority of the sales. A great example of their approach in the opposite way to realism, is the amount of automatic weapons in a WWI game. Sure, they could, for the sake of realism, make the game full of non-automatic weapons, but then it would be a franchise killer when it comes to sales, because most players are still used to the mainstream FPS where they can "spray-n-pray" all day long and does not require a monstruous amount of skill to succeed. Hell, people already complain about the snipers being too OP, when, in real life, they are actually that dangerous (hard to master, but when you do, it's really effective).

You absolutely nailed it with the sentences I placed in bold. I do NOT want Gran Turismo to become so realistic that only the ultra hard core are interested in it. I want GT Sport to be welcoming for players of all ages and if that means sacrificing real and complex simulations, so be it!

I am generally concerned over the state of sim type racing games in the future because in case no has noticed, the two current options available on the PS4 (for example) are the underfunded Assetto Corsa and crowd funded Project Cars. Neither of these games will be a viable option to the typical GTA and COD players. If I, a consultant in the housing industry can see it, you better believe that publishers and investors out there do too! If you need proof of this mindset that I have, take a look at 2 million seller Driveclub and now defunct Evolution Studios.

GT Sport needs to made for everybody, including those who don't know about racing games. It needs to be made for those who can't drive well. As a result, GT Sport most likely will not be perfect in all areas and most likely continue to get complaints from sim enthusiasts. I am OK with that because I would rather see 10,000,000 mediocre drivers with full assists posting YouTube videos then 100 elite ones with bones to pick.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I totally support better AI, overall better physics and better damage than we had in GT6. But when it comes to physics, all that complexity that is often mentioned in this forums, less grip outside the racing line, changes in grip on every single type of pavement/time of day/temperature, brake fade, and so on, should not be a priority for a game like this. The priority, should always be making the cars feel realistically different from each other. This is where the complexity in physics should go. Old cars should feel like old cars. FF cars should feel different from each other. This is how GT should be unique, having a fairly diversified car list (well, it was diversified atleast, let's see if the same happens post release with DLCs) and all the cars feel different.

Making the cars all feel different from each other is, in many ways, the opposite of trying to have the game appeal to a broad audience. Think about it. One of the most lauded aspects of GT's past, was being able to slap any tires you want on any car of any era and compete with any other car of any era. Making old cars feel like old cars for example, means less grip, higher slip angles, less power etc. This means they won't be able to compete with newer rides which limits the overall flexibility of the game and really narrows the number of cars that can race each other. This is a trait inherent in sims like Project Cars and Assetto Corsa, where a Yellowbird, a blistering car in it's day, would not be able to hold it's own on the track against a modern 4 door sedan. The same applies to FF's. Older FF's simply cannot compete with today's Hot Hatches if they are modeled realistically.

You absolutely nailed it with the sentences I placed in bold. I do NOT want Gran Turismo to become so realistic that only the ultra hard core are interested in it. I want GT Sport to be welcoming for players of all ages and if that means sacrificing real and complex simulations, so be it!

I am generally concerned over the state of sim type racing games in the future because in case no has noticed, the two current options available on the PS4 (for example) are the underfunded Assetto Corsa and crowd funded Project Cars. Neither of these games will be a viable option to the typical GTA and COD players. If I, a consultant in the housing industry can see it, you better believe that publishers and investors out there do too! If you need proof of this mindset that I have, take a look at 2 million seller Driveclub and now defunct Evolution Studios.

GT Sport needs to made for everybody, including those who don't know about racing games. It needs to be made for those who can't drive well. As a result, GT Sport most likely will not be perfect in all areas and most likely continue to get complaints from sim enthusiasts. I am OK with that because I would rather see 10,000,000 mediocre drivers with full assists posting YouTube videos then 100 elite ones with bones to pick.

The purpose of driver aids is to give those new to the genre or those will little skill, the chance to compete or at least have an enjoyable experience. There's no need to purposely dumb down the physics for everyone in order to achieve the goal of broad based appeal. The more options you have for realism in fact, the broader the appeal of the game overall. There are guys I see posting in the AC Forums that use Traction Control and ABS on many cars, including those that were created before the tech even existed, and they still get a great deal of enjoyment out of the game.

 

[sems4arsenal]

I hope PD have several modes for the Pro, for example a 1080p mode with better LOD,AF, textures etc, and a 4K/60 mode.

 

[Toblakai99]

I think how a game looks is very important in marketing and appealing to "casual" gamers and hell I love me some eye candy.

 

[05XR8]

Kaz got the message about the physics. He has said driving a real car is easy. It should not be difficult in a game. So, if PD is working to make cars in the game "drivable", they've got everyone covered.

Making the game pretty, gorgeous, beautiful, best looking game in history, should not come at the expense of fun. I'll gladly take a fun game with average graphics, over a graphics focused game with so-so game play.

 

[nocturnalgrey]

The purpose of driver aids is to give those new to the genre or those will little skill, the chance to compete or at least have an enjoyable experience. There's no need to purposely dumb down the physics for everyone in order to achieve the goal of broad based appeal. The more options you have for realism in fact, the broader the appeal of the game overall. There are guys I see posting in the AC Forums that use Traction Control and ABS on many cars, including those that were created before the tech even existed, and they still get a great deal of enjoyment out of the game.

Agreed, GT Sport shouldn't have dumb down physics, but it also shouldn't be so complicated that it becomes intimidating to average user. I just don't see any acceptable reason to pursue the realism any further and to me, what GT does is good enough.

As far as options go, where does it stop? I remember Shift 2 for the PS3 and all of it's options. I had to search the internet for a system that "worked" for me and even after all that work, it left me frustrated. I have no problem with options but I really think having to much can overwhelm the typical player.

 

[dacc10]

Making the cars all feel different from each other is, in many ways, the opposite of trying to have the game appeal to a broad audience. Think about it. One of the most lauded aspects of GT's past, was being able to slap any tires you want on any car of any era and compete with any other car of any era. Making old cars feel like old cars for example, means less grip, higher slip angles, less power etc. This means they won't be able to compete with newer rides which limits the overall flexibility of the game and really narrows the number of cars that can race each other. This is a trait inherent in sims like Project Cars and Assetto Corsa, where a Yellowbird, a blistering car in it's day, would not be able to hold it's own on the track against a modern 4 door sedan. The same applies to FF's. Older FF's simply cannot compete with today's Hot Hatches if they are modeled realistically.

Not necessarily. What I meant was, instead of giving a generic behaviour to every type of car (MR, FR, FF, 4WD, RR,...), make each of them behave like their real life counterparts, different levels of understeer and oversteer, different suspension travel, grip, and so on. Some of them will be faster, some slower, but that's where the PP balancing system comes to play. More parameters in the PP system, solves most of these problems. I think it adds to the fun factor learning every car, how they feel, which is faster, how to tame them.
Classic cars should feel more wobbly, while modern ones should be more planted. The idea of making stock classic cars compete with stock modern cars should even be out of question, with a few exceptions maybe. There are many cars to compete with from any era in every class. Some with minor tweaks in power and weight, can be very evenly balanced with each others.

GT Sport, has huge potential in this regard. With the addition of classes, they could make classes for every type of car (60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, early 2000's, each with 2 or 3 types of cars, Hot Hatches, Sports cars, Supercars) with the addition of future content. The same for classic Gr.1, Gr.3 and Gr.4. There is a way to make every car feel unique, without ruining the balance of the game, and this classes/groups show how it is possible. Of course, if you want to race a Shelby Cobra against a 458 in some random event or random online race (outside Sport mode), you can, but keeping in mind that your car would be slower even with both power/weight balance and same tires on both cars.

And I think there should be a stock tire for each car. And only then, you could use a more modern compound, readapted for that car. On modern cars shouldn't make much difference, but on old cars, having their original street or racing tires, would make a huge difference compared to the generic, modern compounds.