GT Sport Reviews

[ImaRobot]

Would people invest their time in lengthy solo campaign, or play online? I guess they didn't want to split their player base.

I would invest my time in a lengthy solo campaign, and online play. It depends on my mood for the day.

So they removed the playerbase all together? Options are always better than non, and an addition to the game doesn't split the playerbase. DLC Expansions split the playerbase.

Gt fans are geting older now, having diferent priorities, so there is less time for games. Take GTA V for example, it has massive solo campaign and things to do. Then they launched payed dlc online mode, later on.

And a newer, younger, generation jumps in with every release as well. This game isn't restricted to older people, especially considering the 7-77 marketing campaign.

As for GTAV, it covers both fronts, massively, so it's doesn't really fit in with what you're trying to say. Online was free, too, by the way.

Now compare copies sold for GT an GTA V. I can't think of any other game right now that has so massive solo campaign, and has a healthy online community.

You just listed one in this exact sentence.

Critics who will give bad reviews because there is no GT 'put number here' campaign, really need to grow up, or read the title of the game again, until they get it.

They need to grow up because PD decided to drop a big area of the game, and drastically changed from what it used to be and they don't like the new direction? I'll say it again, just because something change, doesn't mean the change has to be liked just based on the fact that there was a change. People get the direction of the game, they just don't like it. It's something heavily reflected in the reviews for a reason.

Reviews from likes of IGN, gamespot, etc should be taken with a cup of salt. I stopped taking them seriously when I seen them give good ratings to the likes of Forza Motorsport 5.

So because they gave a good review to a game that was actually good, but was short on content? Why is that a bad thing? GTS is literally in the exact same position right now.

 

[nickg07]

Game has all the flaws of old games, i.e no/limited crash damage, no mechanical failure.

Tracks too smooth and perfect.

Loses all the good aspects such as the quantity if cars and car collection.

All they had to do was make more cars, design an offline mode and deliver the game.

I would have preferred upscaled GT6 with better online and 4 years worth of DLC. Rather than this.

 

[Scaff]

Maybe I'm missing a point but it's not up to the game to implement driving standards, that's the drivers job. As far as your example is concerned, does the fact that those 3 clean drivers ended up within the first 5 finishing positions not indicate that the penalty system did work by moving the culprits down the finishing order.

You honestly think that a penalty system in which a driver who incurs three laps worth of time penalties without getting a DQ works?

I had a similar experience during the open beta during a race at Tokyo Expressway where I drove a clean race in 4th position behind a top 3 who were liberally rubbing against the wall and were difficult to pass. It was frustrating during the race but satisfying that the penalties they were hit with in the end moved me into a 1st place finish.

And would it not have been better if a system was in place that reduced the need for end of race penalties and improved driver standards?

What game has a perfect driving standards and penalty system?

I'm not asking for perfection, as its not possible. However that doesn't then excuse the issues that the current system has. Other titles have penalties systems that do work better.

Its not rocket science to put something better in place. At least two other titles have it set so that if you don't serve your time penalty within a certain time frame or you fail to give back a place you took by cutting a corner then you get a drive through. Don't take your drive through and you get DQ'd. Cut too many corners, you get a DT, don't take it and you get DQ.

Its still not perfect, but it does work a hell of a lot better than the system GTS currently has.

 

[CopperySinger]

Then feel free to express that in your own review. I've been sim racing long enough to be able to make up my own mind and to have an idea of what is and isn't an AI issue.

ah!!! your exactly right. you do get to tell the people how the AI is.

Nope, you presenting your view and when you have presented opinion as fact you have been asked to support such claims.

You don't get to determine 'how it is' without a lot more supporting evidence than you have.

But please provide enough supporting evidence with your review on the AI so people won't think you are just confusing game problems with some personal issue.

 

[Scaff]

ah!!! your exactly right. you do get to tell the people how the AI is.

But please provide enough supporting evidence with your review on the AI so people won't think you are just confusing game problems with some personal issue.

I will put my review together in exactly the same way I do for every review I've put together.

 

[turnupdaheat]

You honestly think that a penalty system in which a driver who incurs three laps worth of time penalties without getting a DQ works?


And would it not have been better if a system was in place that reduced the need for end of race penalties and improved driver standards?


I'm not asking for perfection, as its not possible. However that doesn't then excuse the issues that the current system has. Other titles have penalties systems that do work better.

Its not rocket science to put something better in place. At least two other titles have it set so that if you don't serve your time penalty within a certain time frame or you fail to give back a place you took by cutting a corner then you get a drive through. Don't take your drive through and you get DQ'd. Cut too many corners, you get a DT, don't take it and you get DQ.

Its still not perfect, but it does work a hell of a lot better than the system GTS currently has.

Yes I certainly agree penalties could be harsher but to simply say the penalty system was not working at all I do not agree with.

 

[Scaff]

Yes I certainly agree penalties could be harsher but to simply say the penalty system was not working at all I do not agree with.

What is the point of a penalty system in motorsport?

To ensure that rules are followed and to punish those that don't follow them, to ensure that occurs it has to include the ultimate sanction. DQ's.

In doing so it should ensure that the cheating is the option that will never succeed, that not following the rules will always result in a worse outcome than following the rules. In that regard the penalty system that is currently in place doesn't work in my view.

Now add in the out of wack BoP for downtuned cars and the Gr.4 GTR; combined with track design by PD that allows people to exploit the penalty system and you have a problem.

Its something that needs to be addressed if GTS is going to succeed on-line, otherwise certain track and car combo's will just be seen as toxic.

 

[Skiddy]

I would invest my time in a lengthy solo campaign, and online play. It depends on my mood for the day.

So they removed the playerbase all together? Options are always better than non, and an addition to the game doesn't split the playerbase. DLC Expansions split the playerbase.


And a newer, younger, generation jumps in with every release as well. This game isn't restricted to older people, especially considering the 7-77 marketing campaign.

As for GTAV, it covers both fronts, massively, so it's doesn't really fit in with what you're trying to say. Online was free, too, by the way.


You just listed one in this exact sentence.


They need to grow up because PD decided to drop a big area of the game, and drastically changed from what it used to be and they don't like the new direction? I'll say it again, just because something change, doesn't mean the change has to be liked just based on the fact that there was a change. People get the direction of the game, they just don't like it. It's something heavily reflected in the reviews for a reason.


So because they gave a good review to a game that was actually good, but was short on content? Why is that a bad thing? GTS is literally in the exact same position right now.

You missed my point.. When online is done right, it can be pure magic to play it. Not even Dice, with EA on their side, tried to make a big SP game plus a great MP experience with Battlefield. PD concentrated their efforts into sport, making sure they get it right, i hope they succeded.

PD tried to change their formula with GT sport, and you start whining that it is not GT 7? Yeah, grow up, it's called buisness. Let them make their own future, trying to adapt to the current state in gaming. You can always not buy the game, wote with your wallet.

 

[ImaRobot]

You missed my point.. When online is done right, it can be pure magic to play it. Not even Dice, with EA on their side, tried to make a big SP game plus a great MP experience with Battlefield. PD concentrated their efforts into sport, making sure they get it right, i hope they succeded.

No I didn't. Dice very much did put effort into their single player aspect. They literally have to write up a whole story from beginning to end. They'll also have to put in many hours of modeling the cutscenes, as well as the gameworld, considering it used a linear style map, that was pretty open. They had to hire voice actors for hours of dialogue. They literally created a short novel for you, and it was a pretty good one at that.

PD tried to change their formula with GT sport, and you start whining that it is not GT 7?

Don't put words in my mouth, as I've never said anything about it not being GT7 from the get go. If you're talking to me, address points I've made, and don't assign other peoples thoughts to me.

Yeah, grow up, it's called buisness.

It's funny that the person getting mad at negative reviews is here telling people they need to grow up. It being "business" doesn't make it any more right.

Let them make their own future, trying to adapt to the current state in gaming

Except for the fact that this isn't actually the current state of gaming yet. In the future? probably, but single player aspects are just as prominent now, and the reviews obviously show that.

You can always not buy the game, wote with your wallet.

Thanks for letting me know that I have an option to buy the game or not. I wasn't sure if I was able to.

 

[BBQ_of_DOOM]

No I didn't. Dice very much did put effort into their single player aspect. They literally have to write up a whole story from beginning to end. They'll also have to put in many hours of modeling the cutscenes, as well as the gameworld, considering it used a linear style map, that was pretty open. They had to hire voice actors for hours of dialogue. They literally created a short novel for you, and it was a pretty good one at that.


Don't put words in my mouth, as I've never said anything about it not being GT7 from the get go. If you're talking to me, address points I've made, and don't assign other peoples thoughts to me.


It's funny that the person getting mad at negative reviews is here telling people they need to grow up. It being "business" doesn't make it any more right.


Except for the fact that this isn't actually the current state of gaming yet. In the future? probably, but single player aspects are just as prominent now, and the reviews obviously show that.


Thanks for letting me know that I have an option to buy the game or not. I wasn't sure if I was able to.

I'm 90% positive this article Polygon just put out signals the opposite.

https://www.polygon.com/2017/10/18/16491188/ea-star-wars-visceral-games-single-player

 

[rono_thomas]

It being "business" doesn't make it any more right.

Right and wrong are purely subjective in this instance. It would be better to describe it more or less popular. (Agree with your point just not the wording)

 

[ImaRobot]

I'm 90% positive this article Polygon just put out signals the opposite.

https://www.polygon.com/2017/10/18/16491188/ea-star-wars-visceral-games-single-player

So an article about Battlefront points out the opposite for Battlefield?

 

[BBQ_of_DOOM]

So an article about Battlefront points out the opposite for Battlefield?

You should read the article?

 

[cutmeamango]

I'm 90% positive this article Polygon just put out signals the opposite.

https://www.polygon.com/2017/10/18/16491188/ea-star-wars-visceral-games-single-player

And: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1439984 / https://venturebeat.com/2017/09/27/agents-of-mayhems-dismal-august-sales-precede-reported-layoffs/

And: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-10-10-games-as-a-service-has-tripled-the-industrys-value

 

[marcvic]

You should try not assuming and jumping the gun and try a bit of comprehension.

Ouch.

I have more than praised PDI for their effort on the livery editor.

Please, pardon my woeful lack of comprehension and point me to the praise in the post that I responded to.

Your example of Pcars2 is well off the mark. You know why? Because that is actually the game play! Seams to me people are dazzled by GTS presentation, which is not game play. Does GTS gameplay hold up on its own? To me and many others it doesn't, and I'm prepared to bet that many would feel the same if you just gave them a disc with the game part of GTS. This doesn't mean some people don't genuinely enjoy it though.

I think it works because I'm taking one of a game's biggest selling points, and 'challenging' you to imagine what the game would be like without it. Also, just because it's a driving sim doesn't mean that the only element of gameplay is driving. I get what you're on about, but how is spending hours and hours on something that's in a game, not gameplay?

 

[ImaRobot]

You should read the article?

I didn't see the part you bolded on my quote, and with nothing more added to your post I didn't know the context of which you were talking about.

Going over the article it seems to focus on games that offer a pure single player experience, rather than those that affect both. Going so far to note the effort into Star Wars Battlefronts single player campaign and focus because of the backlash it got of not having one. Even if this is where gaming is heading, single player aspects of games that used to have a combination of both seems to be just as necessary, given the reviews of the predecessor of Battlefront, and the recent iteration of GTS as well.

However, like I said, it's not the current state of gaming, but it very much is leading there, and that article very much shows that with it's insinuations that this is where the market is heading.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Would people invest their time in lengthy solo campaign, or play online? I guess they didn't want to split their player base. For a long time I enjoyed solo play, but grew to like online multiplayer. Why? No match is ever the same, and my time is limited. Gt fans are geting older now, having diferent priorities, so there is less time for games. Take GTA V for example, it has massive solo campaign and things to do. Then they launched payed dlc online mode, later on. Now compare copies sold for GT an GTA V. I can't think of any other game right now that has so massive solo campaign, and has a healthy online community. GT is big, but not that big. I think it's a good move from PD to go online, because, face it, esport is going to be a big big thing. DOTA, LoL, Overwatch, soon battlefield.. The list will only get bigger. And yeah, no race will ever be the same, that's what I'm looking forward to.

Critics who will give bad reviews because there is no GT 'put number here' campaign, really need to grow up, or read the title of the game again, until they get it.



Just say it... The review is 90 percent ready, you can launch it any time you want.

Lengthy solo campaign? No GT-Mode has ever been like that. Each series within each game has always been small and doable in small chunks. (except GT3 maybe) There is only as much investment as you want to put into it.

 

[BBQ_of_DOOM]

I didn't see the part you bolded on my quote, and with nothing more added to your post I didn't know the context of which you were talking about.

Going over the article it seems to focus on games that offer a pure single player experience, rather than those that affect both. Going so far to note the effort into Star Wars Battlefronts single player campaign and focus because of the backlash it got of not having one. Even if this is where gaming is heading, single player aspects of games that used to have a combination of both seems to be just as necessary, given the reviews of the predecessor of Battlefront, and the recent iteration of GTS as well.

However, like I said, it's not the current state of gaming, but it very much is leading there, and that article very much shows that with it's insinuations that this is where the market is heading.

Right, that's where this is heading and I think GTS is PD's/Kaz's way to head that off. I think your statement regarding single player content is not reflective of where we're headed (soon, like 2017 soon), that's all.

 

[ImaRobot]

Right, that's where this is heading and I think GTS is PD's/Kaz's way to head that off. I think your statement regarding single player content is not reflective of where we're headed (soon, like 2017 soon), that's all.

Yet we aren't even heading there in 2017 soon(as we're less than a month and a half before it's over), or 2018 considering the games still in production that either focus on both, or single player aspects. That article also focused heavily on online aspects of games, noting that they just aren't getting enough return investments on games these days, haven't to try to find other sources of income. Keeping people coming back with the use of micro-transactions within multiplayer apsects, so not even multi-player games seem to be immune to the decline, as more and more companies start pushing towards microtransactions as we progress.

Those sole-single player games have trouble with that because they lack the longevity that multi-player games have. Yet, those that focus on both aspects seem to be having a broader appeal, gathering both those that want the linear story, as well as getting attention from those that don't care.

 

[BBQ_of_DOOM]

Yet we aren't even heading there in 2017 soon, or 2018 considering all the games still in production that either focus on both, or single player aspects. That article also focused heavily on online aspects of games, noting that they just aren't getting enough return investments on games these days, haven't to try to find other sources of income. Keeping people coming back with the use of micro-transactions within multiplayer apsects. Those sole-single player games have trouble with that because they lack the longevity that multi-player games have. Yet, those that focus on both aspects seem to be having a broader appeal, gathering both those that want the linear story, as well as getting attention from those that don't care.

A games publisher just nixed an entire studio focused on this and is now completely redoing the plans for a single player Star Wars game, a game not without considerable marketing heft, due to "testing" and feedback that went against the single player focus.

This is simply the calm before the storm.

 

[Skiddy]

No I didn't. Dice very much did put effort into their single player aspect. They literally have to write up a whole story from beginning to end. They'll also have to put in many hours of modeling the cutscenes, as well as the gameworld, considering it used a linear style map, that was pretty open. They had to hire voice actors for hours of dialogue. They literally created a short novel for you, and it was a pretty good one at that

How long was the campaign? It was good, but short, one endurance race in gt life. It was that short.

Don't put words in my mouth, as I've never said anything about it not being GT7 from the get go. If you're talking to me, address points I've made, and don't assign other peoples thoughts to me.

Sorry for that.

t's funny that the person getting mad at negative reviews is here telling people they need to grow up. It being "business" doesn't make it any more right

I am not mad, I don't even read the reviews, just this forum topic. I played the demo, I don't need reviews.
PD does not care about players, only financial reports. It is their company, their product, their workers they will have to sack if they do not get it right. So it maybe it is not fair or right to the players, but what about thieir staff?. This is not a simple decision to make.

Except for the fact that this isn't actually the current state of gaming yet. In the future? probably, but single player aspects are just as prominent now, and the reviews obviously show that.

You can't be serious. Which has more active players right now Gt series or DOTA2 ? PUBG or GT series? Online gaming is huge, PD want's that piece of pie.

Thanks for letting me know that I have an option to buy the game or not. I wasn't sure if I was able to

Will you buy the game?

 

[ImaRobot]

A games publisher just nixed an entire studio focused on this and is now completely redoing the plans for a single player Star Wars game, a game not without considerable marketing heft, due to "testing" and feedback that went against the single player focus.

This is simply the calm before the storm.

You are aware that the article is not talking about the recent Battlefront game coming out right? It's talking about a game that was slated to release in 2019, that is now getting delayed. https://www.polygon.com/2017/10/17/16490960/ea-closing-visceral-games-star-wars-game-delayed

From the article:

We will maintain the stunning visuals, authenticity in the Star Wars universe, and focus on bringing a Star Wars story to life

Importantly, we are shifting the game to be a broader experience that allows for more variety and player agency, leaning into the capabilities of our Frostbite engine and reimagining central elements of the game to give players a Star Wars adventure of greater depth and breadth to explore.

A broader experience, as the the game focused on purely single player aspects, isn't achieved by removing aspects of it, but expanding it. It sounds to me like in addition to the single player story mode, there's going to be additional multiplayer aspects in hope that it add's to the longevity of the game.

 

[H1s6n]

I give it 7.5 out of 10

 

[ImaRobot]

How long was the campaign? It was good, but short, one endurance race in gt life. It was that short.

Hours long from what I can tell. It being shorter and lacking the longevity of multiplayer doesn't mean there was less effort. It takes a lot of effort to make a story like that.

I am not mad, I don't even read the reviews, just this forum topic. I played the demo, I don't need reviews.
PD does not care about players, only financial reports. It is their company, their product, their workers they will have to sack if they do not get it right. So it maybe it is not fair or right to the players, but what about thieir staff?. This is not a simple decision to make.

If you didn't even read the reviews, than why are you having such an issue with them? I for one do need the reviews, as I'm on the fence about it. So I'll read what people have to say here, and what people say all over the internet and gather my own opinion on it. If it checks enough boxes, I'll get it.

Again, you're right that it is their product, and they can do what they want with it. However, that doesn't mean we have to like it.

Will you buy the game?

I'm leaning more towards Yes, but I'm still on the fence as I have to purchase a whole console to get it.

 

[cocoflowa]

Gaming Trend 10/10 http://gamingtrend.com/feature/reviews/racing-triumph-demands-an-audience-gran-turismo-sport-review/

 

[CopperySinger]

And: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1439984 / https://venturebeat.com/2017/09/27/agents-of-mayhems-dismal-august-sales-precede-reported-layoffs/

And: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-10-10-games-as-a-service-has-tripled-the-industrys-value

exactly, People are confused that if there is a lack of single-player campaign in GTS. but there is plenty single player, go through the campaign courses they have prepared for you to learn practices of safe online manners, or try arcade mode. Not a single sim racing game in this day and age prizes their campaign mode as being its main interest.
one game has the word "Campaign" over a game mode but that mode has no sense of progression, and the another game has loot boxes (this may slightly ease me from being bored). All of these games lack single player to a certain degree. While Gran Turismo Sport has a single player, the big focus is on serviced based entertainment.

.

I'm leaning more towards Yes, but I'm still on the fence as I have to purchase a whole console to get it.

I see... Thats a whole new system and a game. And a wheel if you want to enjoy it the way I am; the force feedback is strong in GTS and gives me good information.

This is why it is not good to misinform, overrate or underrate games. people have to spend money; and reviews should be done right without the bias.

 

[Skiddy]

If you didn't even read the reviews, than why are you having such an issue with them? I for one do need the reviews, as I'm on the fence about it. So I'll read what people have to say here, and what people say all over the internet and gather my own opinion on it. If it checks enough boxes, I'll get it.

Again, you're right that it is their product, and they can do what they want with it. However, that doesn't mean we have to like it.

I don't think I have an issue, i was trying to say that they are reviewing the game based on their expectations, not for what the game was advertised to be. PD should have called it Not your usual Gran Turismo.

I am assuming you didn't try the demo. You should if you haven't. Or see somebody who has the ps4 and the game. Reviews are, well,opinions. And everybody has one of those. That' all, got to go.

 

[turnupdaheat]

What is the point of a penalty system in motorsport?

To ensure that rules are followed and to punish those that don't follow them, to ensure that occurs it has to include the ultimate sanction. DQ's.

In doing so it should ensure that the cheating is the option that will never succeed, that not following the rules will always result in a worse outcome than following the rules. In that regard the penalty system that is currently in place doesn't work in my view.

Now add in the out of wack BoP for downtuned cars and the Gr.4 GTR; combined with track design by PD that allows people to exploit the penalty system and you have a problem.

Its something that needs to be addressed if GTS is going to succeed on-line, otherwise certain track and car combo's will just be seen as toxic.

The penalties those drivers received in the race you referred to demonstrated that they couldn't succeed so I'm not sure how you can say the system does not work at all. We are less than 24 hours into the games existence in our part of the world so it may be premature to say the system will not have a positive influence on driving standards. I raced extensively during the closed beta period and I witnessed a significant general improvement as time progressed so I'll keep an open mind for a while longer before writing the system off altogether.

 

[ImaRobot]

This is why it is not good to misinform, overrate or underrate games. people have to spend money; and reviews should be done right without the bias.

Regardless of which, I'm not reading just one review, I'm reading multiple and gathering my own opinion based on positives and negatives alike.

However, that is a bit ironic, since that has been the majority of what your posts have been in the VS forum.

I don't think I have an issue, i was trying to say that they are reviewing the game based on their expectations, not for what the game was advertised to be. PD should have called it Not your usual Gran Turismo.

Expectations and what is delivered is exactly the way to review a game, especially taking into consideration the past and history of the game your reviewing and seeing what did/didn't change for better/worse. You're right, it's not the usual GT, and that seems to be the issue that most have. That's not a bad reason either.

I am assuming you didn't try the demo. You should if you haven't. Or see somebody who has the ps4 and the game. Reviews are, well,opinions. And everybody has one of those. That' all, got to go.

Not having a PS4 I didn't get the chance to. However, playing it isn't going to persuade me anymore than not playing it, as my issues aren't with the gameplay.

 

[rono_thomas]

The penalties those drivers received in the race you referred to demonstrated that they couldn't succeed so I'm not sure how you can say the system does not work at all. We are less than 24 hours into the games existence in our part of the world so it may be premature to say the system will not have a positive influence on driving standards. I raced extensively during the closed beta period and I witnessed a significant general improvement as time progressed so I'll keep an open mind for a while longer before writing the system off altogether.

Ignoring the really lenient SR, Driving standards will not improve if cars keep flitting in and out of dimensions.