Gran Turismo Unpopular Opinions Thread

[Rinsky]

This will be unpopular, but here's my thought:
Real GTs were much better. I miss the old 550p and road car lobbies. Oh and for chill out there were the random races with assigned crappy cars and crappy tyres, boy they were fun.
Nowadays is just the desert. I turn on the game just to see there's no decent road car lobby and I'm off again.

Still no weather implementation in the game...

Finally the main unpopular issue:
I don't particularly like racing cars. They are actually a waste of my hdd'space together with blue moon and other ovals.
Gr cars are for people who just like to have massive grip and throw the car around. They are super boring and you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference among them. Just hit the gas and they will grip, as they should given their racing nature but it is just so boring.
In fact it is similar to racing with low powered road cars i.e. difficult to make the difference since it is easy to exploit their potential for many (Gr 1 only exception maybe). Maybe that's why so many like them... Just easy to drive around...

I want a road car focused GT as it has aways been!

And I forgot: add the latest versions of cars first not simply using what was present in the old games and finally invest in the production team, ps5 is almost out and we still don't have a finished product!

You might just be surprised at how many people would agree with you.

 

[Voodoovaj]

Than why would they even add one single rain/wet track back in the first place? You keep implying across multiple areas that these things got taken out because no one used it, but that really doesn't make much sense if they're adding them in, even if it is only one track.

I'll believe it when I see it. Just like I believed the GT5 damage video. We get promised a lot of things.

There is a laundry list of things that people on this forum think are amazing, that should be in the game, or returned to the game. Yet, they remain out. Maybe it's because there's too much to test (which is a valid issue) or maybe these things aren't as popular as we'd like to think.

I will remind you though, this is a thread about unpopular opinions. These are simply my unpopular opinions. I am not saying they are facts because I have no proof, just conjecture and anecdotal evidence.

 

[ImaRobot]

I'll believe it when I see it. Just like I believed the GT5 damage video. We get promised a lot of things.

Believe it when you see it? That's all fine and dandy, but once again, it really has nothing to do with what you stated. Which was that it was removed due to it being unpopular. So if that's the case, it's extremely odd that it's still in there. Just in an extremely lack luster form. At this point, it would have been better if it was actually removed, or actually have something more in depth. Either side of the spectrum would have been a better outcome, really.

There is a laundry list of things that people on this forum think are amazing, that should be in the game, or returned to the game. Yet, they remain out. Maybe it's because there's too much to test (which is a valid issue) or maybe these things aren't as popular as we'd like to think.

Yeah, and this isn't one of them. Since, you know, it's actually there.

I will remind you though, this is a thread about unpopular opinions. These are simply my unpopular opinions. I am not saying they are facts because I have no proof, just conjecture and anecdotal evidence.

Remind me for what? This is a discussion forum, and all we're doing is discussing your opinion that it was removed due to it being unpopular. Which really doesn't seem accurate at all at this point. Although, really, what you've been saying is that that opinion isn't unpopular. In fact, you've been advocating that rain races are universally disliked. That would make it a popular opinion, going off what you said.

 

[Sage Ages]

Pickup trucks, crossovers and SUVs have no place in the Gran Turismo series.

They don't have a place in the Daily Races. It's a nightmare every single time.

Otherwise, I'm fine with them.

 

[Voodoovaj]

Believe it when you see it? That's all fine and dandy, but once again, it really has nothing to do with what you stated. Which was that it was removed due to it being unpopular. So if that's the case, it's extremely odd that it's still in there. Just in an extremely lack luster form. At this point, it would have been better if it was actually removed, or actually have something more in depth. Either side of the spectrum would have been a better outcome, really.

Seriously now, I am totally perplexed about this discussion. Are you saying that there is a setting for dynamic weather somewhere in this game?

I play this game a lot, at least daily, and I thought I knew everything about it. I'm being completely serious when I say that I have never seen it rain in the game, other than that one rally challenge. It's never rained on me during a cloudy race. I know that there have been daily races on the cloudy versions of a track, but I have never seen rain. Do the "Cloudy" version mean dynamic weather??????

We're talking about dynamic weather correct?

I just hopped on the game to confirm this, but I can't actually set any of the tracks to wet. I can choose cloudy, and that's it. I know we have wet tires, so I believe there has to be some way of making it rain, but it's definitely not intuitive. Am I wrong? Does the "cloudy" selection mean dynamic weather?

I'm having a Twilight Zone moment.

Seriously, you have to admit, if rain or changeable weather were that popular, it wouldn't be as good as hidden. I can choose night races with ease so why can't I choose wet or changeable with the same ease?

 

[ImaRobot]

Seriously now, I am totally perplexed about this discussion. Are you saying that there is a setting for dynamic weather somewhere in this game?

Nope, never insisted it one bit. Weird that you'd insist that it's me not reading very well. You may have started it about dynamic weather with someone else, but you've never talked about anything other than rain races specifically, not anything dynamic about the weather system changing during races, just pure, rainy races. That's all I've been talking about

I play this game a lot, at least daily, and I thought I knew everything about it. I'm being completely serious when I say that I have never seen it rain in the game, other than that one rally challenge. It's never rained on me during a cloudy race. I know that there have been daily races on the cloudy versions of a track, but I have never seen rain. Do the "Cloudy" version mean dynamic weather??????

So in short, you've never seen rain in the game, but you've seen rain in the game? That's all I'm talking about really, and it's been fairly clear since I've mentioned the one race plenty of times. If you go back and read, it was specifically mentioned by that things like this were removed because it wasn't popular, which I disagreed with. That's it. The dynamic weather(as well as TOD, or are you going to pretend that that was also not popular, so that's why it was removed?) was likely removed because of hardware issues, that sounds more logical than popularity. However, the steps to show that they still have it in mind are still there - Hence the race with weather affects, as well as rain tires as well.

We're talking about dynamic weather correct?

You were, with someone else. I was just commenting on the aspect of things being removed because you deemed them unpopular to the general audience(which in fact, makes your opinion a popular one, not the other way around.)

Seriously, you have to admit, if rain or changeable weather were that popular, it wouldn't be as good as hidden. I can choose night races with ease so why can't I choose wet or changeable with the same ease?

I don't really, because that's besides the point. You said it's unpopularity is the reason it's gone, that's what I commented on. You can very much still select the race with ease, just like you can with the time options. The difference being is that it's implementation is so half assed that it doesn't make sense - Seems more like a PD being PD type of thing.

It's funny you touch up on that though. Do you think they removed dynamic TOD because it was unpopular, or due to restrictive hardware? Hardware makes more sense to me rather than popularity. Reason I'm asking, is because like I mentioned before, if it was due to popularity of a feature/aspect of the game, than one would wonder why PD choose the strict BOP, regulated online racing, when it really doesn't seem to be too popular. It certainly is growing in popularity, but it definitely wasn't at the time of the prior game in which they likely gauged information off of.

Either way, this isn't about an unpopular opinion anymore is it? That seems rather popular if your word is anything to go by.

 

[Voodoovaj]

Nope, never insisted it one bit. Weird that you'd insist that it's me not reading very well. You may have started it about dynamic weather with someone else, but you've never talked about anything other than rain races specifically, not anything dynamic about the weather system changing during races, just pure, rainy races. That's all I've been talking about

I was just trying to clarify because I was honestly confused.

So in short, you've never seen rain in the game, but you've seen rain in the game? That's all I'm talking about really, and it's been fairly clear since I've mentioned the one race plenty of times. If you go back and read, it was specifically mentioned by that things like this were removed because it wasn't popular, which I disagreed with. That's it. The dynamic weather(as well as TOD, or are you going to pretend that that was also not popular, so that's why it was removed?) was likely removed because of hardware issues, that sounds more logical than popularity. However, the steps to show that they still have it in mind are still there - Hence the race with weather affects, as well as rain tires as well.

Well, no, it's wet, but not really raining, and it's only that one challenge. And it's definitely not dynamic.

I'm talking about setting the normal tracks to rain. Am I wrong in saying that is not possible?? I'm not arguing, I'm asking an honest question, because this leads to more honest questions that I hadn't considered until now.

I don't really, because that's besides the point. You said it's unpopularity is the reason it's gone, that's what I commented on. You can very much still select the race with ease, just like you can with the time options. The difference being is that it's implementation is so half assed that it doesn't make sense - Seems more like a PD being PD type of thing.

If we re talking about that one challenge, it can hardly be called a race.

But again, don't you find it strange that it's only in that one very limited space? I'm not saying this as a challenge to you're point of view. I'm past that and onto the oddity that this is bringing to light.

It's funny you touch up on that though. Do you think they removed dynamic TOD because it was unpopular, or due to restrictive hardware? Hardware makes more sense to me rather than popularity. Reason I'm asking, is because like I mentioned before, if it was due to popularity of a feature/aspect of the game, than one would wonder why PD choose the strict BOP, regulated online racing, when it really doesn't seem to be too popular. It certainly is growing in popularity, but it definitely wasn't at the time of the prior game in which they likely gauged information off of.

Well, that's just it. The PS3 had it and that was far more restrictive. The PS2 more restrictive still.

I have seen it done well from all they way back to PS2. Melbourne House ( I think they are called Krome now) did an F1 game with really well done rain effects (for the time). Codemasters has rain in F1. If they can do it, it can be done in GT. F1 cars should require more processing power than a regular car because of the more complex shapes. It's been a thing for so long that the methodology should be very well known by now, so hardware (in and of itself) seems like an unlikely limitation.


None the less, I think there is something fishy. Maybe I am Johnny Come Lately to this, but I honestly didn't pay attention to it.

We have wet tires, but no wet racing. That seems like an extremely bizarre omission/inclusion depending on how you look at it. Wet tires and working windshield wipers mean there is wet racing somewhere in this game, have I seriously missed it or is it omitted? I have a hard time believing that something like windshield wipers and wet tires would be included without there being rain in the code, or at least, I haven't seen it. That one rally challenge not withstanding, because why would they develop wet features for the entire game solely for the sake of one event?

I say this because of the testing regime. If a feature is in the game, it needs testing. So, wet tires will have to have been tested. With the change in 1.32, they will still have needed testing. Why are there resources being spent on testing rain features, without rain tracks?


Am i completely out in left field here? Am I simply ignorant of how to enable this feature or is it actually missing?

 

[ImaRobot]

Well, no, it's wet, but not really raining, and it's only that one challenge. And it's definitely not dynamic.

Looks like rain to me, and again, I never mentioned it being dynamic.

I'm talking about setting the normal tracks to rain. Am I wrong in saying that is not possible?? I'm not arguing, I'm asking an honest question, because this leads to more honest questions that I hadn't considered until now.

I wasn't. Again, I was commenting on your statement that all these things got removed due to unpopularity. You're absolutely right that it's not possible to select rain on a track, outside of that very specific instance.

If we re talking about that one challenge, it can hardly be called a race.

But again, don't you find it strange that it's only in that one very limited space? I'm not saying this as a challenge to you're point of view. I'm past that and onto the oddity that this is bringing to light.

I agree, that's why I keep implying how lack luster the actual feature/race is.

Yes, I find it strange. I also find it strange that there's apparently snow tires too. To me, it's just more of those PD oddities that crop up with each game, for now.

Maybe they had it planned and didn't make it in time?
Maybe the hardware didn't allow for it, and with them now trying to aim for a seemingly more stable framerate, they opted out?

There's too many questions with it, really. Though, my guess is hardware issues? The Xbox One X is supposedly more powerful, and yet there is no dynamic TOD, only rain options. That's what leads me to believe that.

Well, that's just it. The PS3 had it and that was far more restrictive. The PS2 more restrictive still.

I have seen it done well from all they way back to PS2. Melbourne House ( I think they are called Krome now) did an F1 game with really well done rain effects (for the time). Codemasters has rain in F1. If they can do it, it can be done in GT. F1 cars should require more processing power than a regular car because of the more complex shapes. It's been a thing for so long that the methodology should be very well known by now, so hardware (in and of itself) seems like an unlikely limitation.

It was - If I remember correctly, even then, it wasn't for all tracks? On top of that, under stress, it would produce some undesirable frame rate issues. Like I mentioned before, it seems that there was more quality put into that aspect of the game, trying to hit a locked FPS at all times, that maybe may have hindered them on that front. More powerful hardware is available, and we still don't see it in Forza, another game that aims for locked FPS over most anything else.

 

[Voodoovaj]

...

Maybe they had it planned and didn't make it in time?
Maybe the hardware didn't allow for it, and with them now trying to aim for a seemingly more stable framerate, they opted out?

There's too many questions with it, really. Though, my guess is hardware issues? The Xbox One X is supposedly more powerful, and yet there is no dynamic TOD, only rain options. That's what leads me to believe that.


It was - If I remember correctly, even then, it wasn't for all tracks? On top of that, under stress, it would produce some undesirable frame rate issues. Like I mentioned before, it seems that there was more quality put into that aspect of the game, trying to hit a locked FPS at all times, that maybe may have hindered them on that front. More powerful hardware is available, and we still don't see it in Forza, another game that aims for locked FPS over most anything else.

I dunno...seems odd to me.

The problem with rain is that the asphalt becomes reflective. That one special stage is reflecting a lot of stuff, so if it's working there, it's working. Spray is often handled with particle effects and the cars kick up dust when they go off track, so that's the same thing.

Based on what I see in game now, there's no reason why rain should be omitted (from a technical point of view). Any of those 'cloudy' tracks should be rain tracks, and my guess is that they were intended to be so. Now, it may be causing a bug that they haven't been able to fix. That's possible.

As for time of day, the issue is moving shadows. You have to cast shadows in real time as the sun moves across the sky. With a fixed sun, you can pre-bake the shadows onto the textures, so you save resources. So, time of day is quite wasteful if you are on a standard clock, but if you speed up time (like GT6) then it's a neat feature. Yet again though, they had it in GT6 so, even with the additional level of quality, I find it hard to believe the hardware is the limiting factor. This is most likely a creative choice more than anything. By locking down the times of day, they can make this very pretty sunrise and sunset tracks.

 

[ImaRobot]

As for time of day, the issue is moving shadows. You have to cast shadows in real time as the sun moves across the sky. With a fixed sun, you can pre-bake the shadows onto the textures, so you save resources. So, time of day is quite wasteful if you are on a standard clock, but if you speed up time (like GT6) then it's a neat feature. Yet again though, they had it in GT6 so, even with the additional level of quality, I find it hard to believe the hardware is the limiting factor. This is most likely a creative choice more than anything. By locking down the times of day, they can make this very pretty sunrise and sunset tracks.

Which leads to what I've been saying. Those resources are hindered because of hardware limitation, or at least that's what my opinion is. They have the groundwork set up with their lighting system, and even headlights are already projecting and making dynamic shadows on things like trees and other vehicles, so if it's already partially there than whats the issue? Me thinks that making the whole race-world dynamic might be just be a bit too demanding, especially with how great of a lighting model they have.

It being there before, and now being severely limited really makes me think of hardware in this case. It was there before, and now it's either missing, or downplayed significantly.

Actually, I just went on to look for the article, and I've found it

We opted to not have the transitions in the race this time in order to raise the framerate and the quality of the image *during* the race. So the user will be able to set that before they enter the race. So you’ll still be able to have night races, morning, races at dawn, dusk, and so on

That quote is directly from Kaz himself, as you can read it in the article here. So in part, it seems we're both somewhat correct. It makes for a better image, but it's also affects the stability of the frame rate, which would be due to the hardware and design choices they've made, as they put a higher priority on another aspect of the game it seems.

 

[Voodoovaj]

@ImaRobot

But the rain is a perplexing thing. It's eating at me now. After a year, I don't think they would add rain back in, but why was it removed.

As for the dynamic time of day, I'm not buying what Kaz is selling. It's true that it's not a really useful thing in terms of racing, so why waste the resources on drawing dynamic shadows, but I'm starting to think that there is more to the story.

HOWEVER, this is all different if we are talking VR. I bet THAT's why it got yanked. Not because it would hurt frame rate in the regular game, but because it may have made VR unusable

 

[ImaRobot]

GT is running on an 8K TV. There's no word on what hardware it's running on, but I strongly doubt it's PS5 yet. It would be too soon. It might be a dev station or something else capable of 8K, but I'm doubtful it's a PS5 chipset. So, if it's a modified PS4Pro chipset, If it can push the pixels at 8K, there's more than enough performance for the dynamic shadows at 2K.

The PS4 PRO can't even handle native 4k, so it's likely not any hardware even resembling the recent PS4, or even next gen to be honest.

HOWEVER, this is all different if we are talking VR. I bet THAT's why it got yanked. Not because it would hurt frame rate in the regular game, but because it may have made VR unusable

VR is already a fraction of the full game in general, so I doubt it's that. Doesn't it only run one car on the track? They didn't remove any other aspect of the game as a whole, just to get that working so why this? Not only that, but why would they remove a feature that literally everyone would be experiencing for a feature that would only affect a very, very(and I mean very) small percentage of users?

Everything is slapping us in the face that the current hardware just isn't up to par with the grand scheme that Kaz has laid out. It's very much possible to get it working on the PS4, it's just that the design choices he has on other aspects of the game are taking priority over this completely. It also explains why the VR experience is limited compared to the full game.

One other aspect that I feel we both may have neglected, is that there's now both two different types PS4 - One being weaker than the other. Maybe it's that if they introduced it, it would be too much a problem for the lower end model?

 

[Voodoovaj]

VR is already a fraction of the full game in general, so I doubt it's that. Doesn't it only run one car on the track? They didn't remove any other aspect of the game as a whole, just to get that working so why this? Not only that, but why would they remove a feature that literally everyone would be experiencing for a feature that would only select a very, very(and I mean very) small percentage of users?

I'm skeptical. Those wet tires are a smoking gun. Why are they still there? Maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist, but it seems super strange.

Remember how they hit the Super Soft tires and Nitrous? Why not hide tires that aren't needed? Never mind me, it's just something that's eating at me now.

Everything is slapping us in the face that the current hardware just isn't up to par with the grand scheme that Kaz has laid out. It's very much possible to get it working on the PS4, it's just that the design choices he has on other aspects of the game are taking priority over this completely. It also explains why the VR experience is limited compared to the full game.

One other aspect that I feel we both may have neglected, is that there's now both two different types PS4 - One being weaker than the other. Maybe it's that if they introduced it, it would be too much a problem for the lower end model?

Possibly.

Something still isn't jiving for me.

 

[LotusEvoraGTE]

It probably has as many detractors as it does fans, but I really do not see the appeal behind Spa-Francorchamps and the overwhelming desire to see the course in this game. I just see it as another run of the mill track that's just... there, when it's already present in another game's track roster. Yeah, it's the host of a 24-hour race in real life but it doesn't feel like it has as much notoriety as Le Mans or Nurburgring.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind seeing it in the game but I don't have the same amount of passion for its inclusion as... some people on this forum. At this point, the track just feels like the Gran Turismo equivalent of Forza's Fujimi Kaido course in terms of the amount of people who constantly yap on about wanting it back.

Now that that's been said, it's time for me to hide behind my flame shield.

 

[ShiftingGears]

It probably has as many detractors as it does fans, but I really do not see the appeal behind Spa-Francorchamps and the overwhelming desire to see the course in this game. I just see it as another run of the mill track that's just... there, when it's already present in another game's track roster. Yeah, it's the host of a 24-hour race in real life but it doesn't feel like it has as much notoriety as Le Mans or Nurburgring.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind seeing it in the game but I don't have the same amount of passion for its inclusion as... some people on this forum. At this point, the track just feels like the Gran Turismo equivalent of Forza's Fujimi Kaido course in terms of the amount of people who constantly yap on about wanting it back.

Now that that's been said, it's time for me to hide behind my flame shield.

The problem with Spa for me is that it is an FIA Grade 1 track, so it has enormous amounts of tarmac run-off that will get exploited by people who know their way around ambiguous algorithms.

I'm skeptical. Those wet tires are a smoking gun. Why are they still there? Maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist, but it seems super strange.

Remember how they hit the Super Soft tires and Nitrous? Why not hide tires that aren't needed?

I am guessing because a lot of their code is in some metastable state where leaving it alone is much more palatable than attempting to fix what is really a very low priority issue and risking breaking something else. Maybe they are still hoping they can get wet weather included in the game even if it gets delayed and delayed. To be honest I would much rather PD invest in resources to get new tracks in the game, as I don't see wet weather being popular with most of the player base at all.

 

[ScottPuss20]

It probably has as many detractors as it does fans, but I really do not see the appeal behind Spa-Francorchamps and the overwhelming desire to see the course in this game. I just see it as another run of the mill track that's just... there, when it's already present in another game's track roster. Yeah, it's the host of a 24-hour race in real life but it doesn't feel like it has as much notoriety as Le Mans or Nurburgring.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind seeing it in the game but I don't have the same amount of passion for its inclusion as... some people on this forum. At this point, the track just feels like the Gran Turismo equivalent of Forza's Fujimi Kaido course in terms of the amount of people who constantly yap on about wanting it back.

Now that that's been said, it's time for me to hide behind my flame shield.

There's really no point complaining about Spa; if you're that desperate to drive on it, play Project Cars, F1 2018 or Assetto Corsa... I'm actually sick of the toxicity and constant droning - GT Sport isn't the only game in existence so if you're that pissed off, go out and buy a game which has it! Problem solved. People need to get off their soapboxes and shut up.

 

[Cerebral303]

Spa was ruined when they changed the bus stop.

 

[ShiftingGears]

Spa was ruined when they changed the bus stop.

You mean when they added it, or when they modified it in 2004 or when they modified it in 2007?

 

[Veinz]

As much as I like Spa, it's in pretty much every other racing game I own already. I would rather see them add one of the great American tracks instead. Road America, Watkins Glen, Road Atlanta, etc.

 

[Cristobal1234]

I'm the only one who likes to drive stock cars rather than fully upgraded cars? I don't like to drive cars with fake specs, unfortunately some Gr.1 cars from GT Sport have absurd specifications with power-to-weight ratios above 1.0 hp/kg.

 

[BigJimmy]

I'm the only one who likes to drive stock cars rather than fully upgraded cars? I don't like to drive cars with fake specs, unfortunately some Gr.1 cars from GT Sport have absurd specifications with power-to-weight ratios above 1.0 hp/kg.

Says the guy with the crazy concept car as his profile pic

Unpopular opinion: The anticipation of GT sport is always better than the consumption. (much like a plate of fish and chips)

 

[Cerebral303]

You mean when they added it, or when they modified it in 2004 or when they modified it in 2007?

Haha. Yeah, good point. From its introduction in 81 to the modification in 2004 it was at it's best IMO. I just love the entry to the bus stop after such a high speed section, and seeing cars swerve in over the kerb was exciting.

I don't mind the mod in 2004 to the exit but the removal in 2007 altogether to be replaced by a boring approach to a characterless chicane was a shame, and made even more so because it was not for safety or improving racing, but to make more room in the paddock area.

If they would be adding Spa 81-2001 (incidentally the era I watched most motor racing growing up) then I would be as rabid as all those other Spa fans. As it is, I will enjoy it anyway but I can wait.

 

[PSN:And-War]

Who really likes complex string, that is on track I hated so much

 

[ScottPuss20]

Who really likes complex string, that is on track I hated so much

I would love to have it back

 

[GTV0819]

Well but the Ford F-150 SVT Raptor is there, and back in GT4 there were quite a number of these kinds of cars.

I don't know why but some people are so stubborn just because of something they personally believe in. Who cares and why does it matter so much if those kinds of vehicles do exist in the game? It's PD's choice since it's their own game anyway. That guy should make a racing simulator game on his own if he doesn't want to see them again in video games at all.

 

[PSN:And-War]

I would love to have it back

why really, I dont see why it was just boring and life less to me, like racing in a Tesco's Car park to quote Mark Webber, ah he should of had a F1 title too, but Redbull Favoured Ve Jerman.

I dont watch F1 anymore its just boing only the first 5 and last 5 Laps are enjoyable.

 

[dangerman1985]

The Mazda Atenza GR3 is the best car.

 

[Voodoovaj]

The problem with Spa for me is that it is an FIA Grade 1 track, so it has enormous amounts of tarmac run-off that will get exploited by people who know their way around ambiguous algorithms.

It's likely not an algorithm. It's more likely a mask layer. You'll either be "on track" or "off track" but the person implementing the layer has either intentionally neglected some areas (like the curbs or Lago) or accidentally neglected some spots. Although the abuse often gets the press, Le Mans was one track where it was too strict.

It's probably super easy to screw up when you are looking at a track from a satellite view.

why really, I dont see why it was just boring and life less to me, like racing in a Tesco's Car park to quote Mark Webber, ah he should of had a F1 title too, but Redbull Favoured Ve Jerman.

I dont watch F1 anymore its just boing only the first 5 and last 5 Laps are enjoyable.

Simple. Great racing. That track has always had great racing on it in my experience, both in reality and in the past iterations of GT. It's not as easy as it appears because you have to carry a lot of speed to get around it fast. It's challenging with A lot of passing opportunities.

As much as I like Spa, it's in pretty much every other racing game I own already. I would rather see them add one of the great American tracks instead. Road America, Watkins Glen, Road Atlanta, etc.

Is there such a thing? That seems like a SUPER American thing. I bet I could list a dozen better tracks from around the world, that would serve up great racing, before even approaching something currently on U.S. soil.


(unpopular opinion thread)

 

[ShiftingGears]

Surely it has to be an algorithm for off track pemalties, considering the last two corners of Red Bull Ring.

Is there such a thing? That seems like a SUPER American thing. I bet I could list a dozen better tracks from around the world, that would serve up great racing, before even approaching something currently on U.S. soil.


(unpopular opinion thread)

You could make it really unpopular and name these 12 tracks.

 

[ARTAsean]

Is there such a thing? That seems like a SUPER American thing. I bet I could list a dozen better tracks from around the world, that would serve up great racing, before even approaching something currently on U.S. soil.

What a ridiculous and ignorant comment. Yeah it’s an ‘American thing’ to fawn over a wildly popular circuit that has been a GT staple for 15 years. How do you even know that commenter is American?

Anyway, while we are at it, I will gladly take you up on that bet. Let’s see you name 12 tracks (not already within GT Sport) that are more popular, ubiquitous, and historical than Laguna Seca, and most importantly, would be a preferable choice among fans.

Yes, I’ll wait.