GT Sport - Trailers, Videos and Screenshots

[SlipZtrEm]

Sony doesn't mention GTsport with the Ps4 pro. Horizon, Days Gone but not GT.
No words about GT for months from Poly or Sony. What is their strategy?

To be fair, it hasn't even been two months since news of the delay first broke. In Polyphony terms, that's almost no time at all.

I think it's smart not doing so.
It would be like presenting a game on a ultra expensive PC, with top end graphics, 100% stability, and then the average gaming computer would play the game with huge stability problems.

Which is pretty much how most PC games are shown off from devs. Not "hey guys, check out our new game running on minimum specs, it looks... average".

Since the playerbase for the PS4 is huge on the non-Pro version, PD has to show that the game works fine for those consoles.

The main focus should be the standard PS4. The game has to look good and be stable on that system.

Polyphony (and most racing game devs) largely relies on Photomode shots to show off its games, which isn't exactly representative of the actual gameplay. Using a PS4 Pro is a very similar situation.

I fully expect that at E3 2017, most games that have a specific PS4 Pro mode will be shown off with that, with some fine print covering how its not representative of the regular PS4 experience. You can't seriously expect developers to intentionally saddle themselves with older tech to show off their new games.

 

[dacc10]

Which is pretty much how most PC games are shown off from devs. Not "hey guys, check out our new game running on minimum specs, it looks... average".

But on a PC they show the minimum specs to run the game smoothly. On a PS4 vs PS4 Pro, there's yet to be something similar, and even Sony said the games should run smoothly in both systems. For now, with all the questions about the stability with the game for VR, it wouldn't be wise to "show off" how stable the game looks on the Pro, and then on the standard system be a complete mess.

Polyphony (and most racing game devs) largely relies on Photomode shots to show off its games, which isn't exactly representative of the actual gameplay. Using a PS4 Pro is a very similar situation.

I fully expect that at E3 2017, most games that have a specific PS4 Pro mode will be shown off with that, with some fine print covering how its not representative of the regular PS4 experience. You can't seriously expect developers to intentionally saddle themselves with older tech to show off their new games.

I know, but my answer was more inclined to what they usually show on the pods in the latest events. In trailers and replay scenes, and any promotional content, I'm pretty sure they will show them using the Pro. Apart from that, the right thing to do is either, keep the pods with the standard console, or have, side by side, pods with regular and pods Pro.

 

[chzsln485]

Sony doesn't mention GTsport with the Ps4 pro. Horizon, Days Gone but not GT.
No words about GT for months from Poly or Sony. What is their strategy?

I do wonder if the game is undergoing some significant changes at this point in time. Might explain why news has only been slowly trickling out, and why they've been showing off the same sort cars and tracks for some time. Aside from the (admittedly substantial) technical improvements, the same core content keeps being shown off with little expansion and elaboration. Perhaps Kaz is aware of the polarising response to the online-centric gameplay (people seem to either embrace the idea as shrugging off nearly 20 years of the same core game, as a fresh take on the franchise, or they criticise it for the very fact it isn't typical of a GT game or what they were hoping and expecting for). If that's the case, it might be a delay well into 2017. That being said, if the South African Sony rep's comment about the whole January launch window is to be believed, then all of the above is a load of rubbish, probably.

 

[Samus]

it wouldn't be wise to "show off" how stable the game looks on the Pro, and then on the standard system be a complete mess.

It's not like the trailers for GT5 and GT6 showed how bad the framerates could get or any other flaws.

 

[chzsln485]

But on a PC they show the minimum specs to run the game smoothly. On a PS4 vs PS4 Pro, there's yet to be something similar, and even Sony said the games should run smoothly in both systems. For now, with all the questions about the stability with the game for VR, it wouldn't be wise to "show off" how stable the game looks on the Pro, and then on the standard system be a complete mess.



I know, but my answer was more inclined to what they usually show on the pods in the latest events. In trailers and replay scenes, and any promotional content, I'm pretty sure they will show them using the Pro. Apart from that, the right thing to do is either, keep the pods with the standard console, or have, side by side, pods with regular and pods Pro.

Except the whole idea is that the PS4 Pro is not meant to outgun the PS4 to the extent it renders the PS4 version unplayable. In fact, Sony have suggested things like online multiplayer have to retain parity between versions - they talked of the need to avoid "imbalances" between PS4 and Pro users whilst playing online multiplayer, and with a game as clearly online-centric and competitive as GT Sport is supposed to be, handing a technical advantage to the Pro players won't be taken lightly. To be honest, I can't see GT Sport getting significant performance boosts on the Pro seeing as it's a 1080p60 game anyway (at least, theoretically, but framerate is of critical importance when VR enters the equation), and I would be truly amazed if Polyphony have the headroom to bump GT Sport to 4K or anything crazy like that on Pro. I can see it being better on Pro, sure, but not "native 4K at 120fps" or whatever.

Either way, there should be no danger of the same game being "stable" on Pro and a "complete mess" on PS4 as the differences aren't meant to be that fundamental - they are, for all intents and purposes, the same consoles that will play the same software libraries, only one machine will play them with a bit more visual impact.

 

[AKps3]

 

[dacc10]

It's not like the trailers for GT5 and GT6 showed how bad the framerates could get or any other flaws.

I'm not talking about the trailers, since they can be edited. I'm talking about the system on those pods, since what's on those pods is much closer to the final game than the trailer.

Except the whole idea is that the PS4 Pro is not meant to outgun the PS4 to the extent it renders the PS4 version unplayable. In fact, Sony have suggested things like online multiplayer have to retain parity between versions - they talked of the need to avoid "imbalances" between PS4 and Pro users whilst playing online multiplayer, and with a game as clearly online-centric and competitive as GT Sport is supposed to be, handing a technical advantage to the Pro players won't be taken lightly. To be honest, I can't see GT Sport getting significant performance boosts on the Pro seeing as it's a 1080p60 game anyway (at least, theoretically, but framerate is of critical importance when VR enters the equation), and I would be truly amazed if Polyphony have the headroom to bump GT Sport to 4K or anything crazy like that on Pro. I can see it being better on Pro, sure, but not "native 4K at 120fps" or whatever.

Either way, there should be no danger of the same game being "stable" on Pro and a "complete mess" on PS4 as the differences aren't meant to be that fundamental - they are, for all intents and purposes, the same consoles that will play the same software libraries, only one machine will play them with a bit more visual impact.

I'm not saying that GT Sport on the standard system will be unplayable compared to the Pro version. I'm worried about the stability in one vs the other. In theory, there shouldn't be problems, and the game should release well shaped for both consoles, with a simple boost in graphics (and shadows and all that eye candy) with the Pro version.
Showing a super stable version on the Pro, doesn't mean the game is stable on the standard version. The game being shown stable on the standard PS4, means much more for the player base that already owns one, than showing on the top-of-the-line PS4. The only concern I have is the stability. As for graphics, I think that it already looks good enough.

 

[queleuleu]

As usual beautiful lighting and camera angles but where is the scenery?! Still no dust on cars (I don't even speak of colisions ^^)

 

[chzsln485]

I'm not talking about the trailers, since they can be edited. I'm talking about the system on those pods, since what's on those pods is much closer to the final game than the trailer.



I'm not saying that GT Sport on the standard system will be unplayable compared to the Pro version. I'm worried about the stability in one vs the other. In theory, there shouldn't be problems, and the game should release well shaped for both consoles, with a simple boost in graphics (and shadows and all that eye candy) with the Pro version.
Showing a super stable version on the Pro, doesn't mean the game is stable on the standard version. The game being shown stable on the standard PS4, means much more for the player base that already owns one, than showing on the top-of-the-line PS4. The only concern I have is the stability. As for graphics, I think that it already looks good enough.

One of my points was that for PSVR compatibility throughout, the game needs to run at a locked 60fps. Remember also that Sony stipulate that specific features are not to be reserved for the Pro. Therefore, PSVR compatibility must exist on both PS4 and Pro. Therefore, a locked 60fps is required on any version of GT Sport. Of course, this is all theoretical, because the game hasn't been released yet, but this is what Kaz has said about GT Sport so far, and this is the only information we really have to go off.

 

[sems4arsenal]

As usual beautiful lighting and camera angles but where is the scenery?! Still no dust on cars (I don't even speak of colisions ^^)

This looks alright in terms of physics but yeah doesn't seem to be dirt pick up, being thrown from the tire, and the background scenery is a bit dead, it looks too course makery for me.

edit: this looks much more of a "fun" track and it's 2 generation ago

 

[FPV MIC]

On the contrary, I was saying it shouldn't necessarily stick to only existing prescribed motorsport formats.

That's what I meant as well. I was using Drifting and Supermotard as examples of motorsports that didn't stick to the same format as earlier, more traditional forms of motorsport but still became successful.

 

[Imari]

Rallying and driving in the rain don't seem that similar to me at all, not least because a racetrack is relatively extremely smooth.

In real life they're not similar at all. In Gran Turismo however, they're almost identical. That seems like the first problem to me.

That's why I find it weird that every car in FH3 spits fire from the exhaust. It's something that's not even road legal. Hell, there are even noise limitations, let alone something that is potentialy dangerous.

It's Forza Horizon. You may not be familiar with the series, but it's famous for turning the awesomeness on everything up to 11. That's why you can race an Aventador off road in the game, which is clearly ridiculous in real life.

If you're comparing Horizon to reality, you're doing it wrong.

And you still missed the point of my answer to him. He showed a picture of a modified Evo, spitting fire out of the exhaust, implying that it's something normal for a car to backfire with flames popping out of the exhaust.

He didn't imply anything. He posted a picture so that you could see the sound coming out of the exhaust.

Sarcasm can also be difficult for non-native speakers of English, and you definitely missed that one.

No, it's not, but if it makes it easier to distinguish, why not trying to use, atleast here in text both of the situations? Keep in mind that not everyone here is a native english speaker, and words that have double meaning (in this case, technical and literal), might generate confusion, so why not something like "backfire (without actually fire coming out of the exhaust)? Is it that hard?

It's that hard when we know what the words mean but you use them to mean something different.

Stop complaining that the language doesn't work the way you want it to and just use it the way it's supposed to be used. I can sympathise, I've learned other languages. It sucks, but you can't argue with native speakers about how their language should be used.

So, are you assuming that I expect flames coming out of the exhaust? When I said that never happens in real life (and was the main point from all this discussion)? Or are you calling the guys from the studio that makes FH3, non-sensible, since they provided a game full of something that, as you explained yourself, makes no sense?

No, I'm assuming that you don't know what backfiring is.

As for Horizon, I'm not calling them anything. They made the game however they wanted, and from my perspective it's not intended to be entirely realistic.

And that was exactly why there was this discussion. Due to the technical term that makes little sense, as you already stated, and generates confusion. I don't expect a road car spitting flames, unless it gets some sort of aftermarket exhaust instaled in the game. I took the term literally, not technically, so I was saying exactly that, no flames should be expected from this road car.

Well, duh. We all knew that already. The fact is that you used the wrong words, and didn't say exactly that. The car does not backfire, which you're still trying to move the goalposts on.

The words don't generate confusion. You generate confusion by using them wrongly. I can appreciate that you're doing your best but ultimately it's your mistake.

 

[synon]

That's what I meant as well. I was using Drifting and Supermotard as examples of motorsports that didn't stick to the same format as earlier, more traditional forms of motorsport but still became successful.

Apologies i mis-read your post.

 

[Samus]

Still waiting to hear what GTs version of rally does that is better than real rallying or rallycross. It has the length of a rally stage without the tightness and danger, it has the width of a rallycross track without the competitor cars and short, frantic laps with a joker.

So again, what is this supposed to be offering that is fun and exciting, over existing implementations?

 

[queleuleu]

Still waiting to hear what GTs version of rally does that is better than real rallying or rallycross. It has the length of a rally stage without the tightness and danger, it has the width of a rallycross track without the competitor cars and short, frantic laps with a joker.

So again, what is this supposed to be offering that is fun and exciting, over existing implementations?

I see rally in a GT like rally in Sega Rally. And I was happy with the rally tracks on Ps2 and PS3. It was fun and the tracks were gorgeous. It's like the artistic team of Poly has just vanished with the new tracks.

 

[Samus]

I see rally in a GT like rally in Sega Rally. And I was happy with the rally tracks on Ps2 and PS3. It was fun and the tracks were gorgeous. It's like the artistic team of Poly has just vanished with the new tracks.

Yeah but what made the format of Sega Rally exciting was the fast paced, arcade style action. Take that away for a more simulation experience and i'm not sure what you're left with, even if the tracks were more interesting.

 

[05XR8]

And I doubt PD are going get anywhere close to this level of rallying

 

[Eager Snake]

And I doubt PD are going get anywhere close to this level of rallying

Probably not. One of the problems that PD has right now is that they want (or wanted) to cover a lot of things, I don't know if it's a matter of reputation or something, but the series has become one that, in theory, has it all.
The problem with that is that they don't cover anything properly. Is like a huge amount of things half done.
Sometimes I see so many awesome aspects that aren't fully polished, or details that are great but aren't fully exploited.
Maybe this time around, with the support of the FIA, they will centre their efforts into racing for example and develop the whole thing as it deserves.

 

[Samus]

To me the problem lies in the statement Kaz made a while back where he said, paraphrasing, that most of the core team they have today is the same one they had when they made GT1. They need some new blood in the top positions, not Kaz, but other important roles who are allowed to bring new ideas to the table and go through with them. Yes, they've gone with this new direction for GT Sport but as evidenced by this rally offering they still suffer from feeling old and tired in many areas.

 

[Eager Snake]

To me the problem lies in the statement Kaz made a while back where he said, paraphrasing, that most of the core team they have today is the same one they had when they made GT1. They need some new blood in the top positions, not Kaz, but other important roles who are allowed to bring new ideas to the table and go through with them. Yes, they've gone with this new direction for GT Sport but as evidenced by this rally offering they still suffer from feeling old and tired in many areas.

I'd like to add, even with the new people in the company (they even made a post in the now wasted PitStop blog, at least the English one), all of the people they hired are persons who knows NOTHING about racing. Obviously isn't a requirement, you need to be a good professional before anything, but I'd like to see people coming from, I don't know, other racing development teams. Not just the new sound engineer, but people from the late Evolution Studios for example.
Maybe I'm talking nonsense here, but according to the post in the PitStop blog, the new employees never been in a race track before if I remember correctly. They can learn, for sure, they can even surpass everyone's expectations, but sometimes you just feel afraid. Maybe I love so much GT and I just want to see it doing amazing things again...

 

[Johnnypenso]

Probably not. One of the problems that PD has right now is that they want (or wanted) to cover a lot of things, I don't know if it's a matter of reputation or something, but the series has become one that, in theory, has it all.
The problem with that is that they don't cover anything properly. Is like a huge amount of things half done.
Sometimes I see so many awesome aspects that aren't fully polished, or details that are great but aren't fully exploited.
Maybe this time around, with the support of the FIA, they will centre their efforts into racing for example and develop the whole thing as it deserves.

They are covering tarmac and dirt racing, not really a big stretch for a team of 200. Add to that that they have nearly 2 decades of experience devloping those same things and tens and tens of millions of dollars behind each effort, and it all adds up to the game being designed exactly the way they want it designed. In other words, any lack of realism in rally and/or tarmac modes is not the result of lack of experience or manpower or resources, it's deliberate design. If rally is poorly implemented it's because they want it that way, not because they couldn't do better with what resources they had.

 

[trustjab]

Why does PD need to copy anyone? I like road racing, not rallying, but why do WRC if some other games already do that? Why RX if that's already done? PD seemingly will do what they want, will do their tracks and their rallying. Some may not like it, but that's fine, it's not for everyone. Nothing is. Others just might like it and want PD to stick with what they have been doing. Boring wide track and all, 1 competitor or a ghost car.

The game isn't even finished, so maybe there's more to come. I wouldn't write off anything until we know for certain what modes are included and what tracks or options there are. IMO, there's little we can judge that's definitive. Of course there may not be huge changes, but we see from new demo builds that there are changes to things like the hud, slight graphics tweaks etc. I'm still looking at GTS in a positive manner. Things need work, but overall it's a big step up from GT6 from all I've seen. These videos do a lot to help that. The sound from the Merc AMG GT gives me a smile too.

 

[mister dog]

Still waiting to hear what GTs version of rally does that is better than real rallying or rallycross. It has the length of a rally stage without the tightness and danger, it has the width of a rallycross track without the competitor cars and short, frantic laps with a joker.

So again, what is this supposed to be offering that is fun and exciting, over existing implementations?

I'm quite sure it will be rallycross, it's been like that since the beginning so if they continue the trend at least the wide dirt stages still make sense.

I fondly remember the split screen races against a buddy on Smokey mountain or Tahiti back in the day, those were great fun.

 

[FPV MIC]

Still waiting to hear what GTs version of rally does that is better than real rallying or rallycross.

From who? Has anyone actually said that GTs version of rally does anything specifically better than real rallying or rallycross (which is pointless as it's highly subjective and would have been shot down straight away), but if someone has, then why didn't you quote them? Seems like a strange way to get a reply to something that you're waiting for.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Honestly, I assumed the rally stage presented in this game meant that PD is just going to continue the rallyx style events that were done in previous GTs. In which, I'm not against if get make the offroad physics better than in GT5 & 6.

 

[05XR8]

How about this for a new location?

 

[ShiftingGears]

They should kill off any attempt of implementing rallying, it's very obvious they have no clue what they're doing, or no idea how to get there. Any half-step forward in previous iterations of GT games invariably gets abandoned and they regress to where they were in GT2.

Also, no rallycross track is as dusty as what is in the GT Demos. They might want to reduce the dust effects to improve visibility and make it less of an awkward compromise than it already is.

 

[queleuleu]

How about this for a new location?

FH3 Academy?

 

[dbarrade]

This looks alright in terms of physics but yeah doesn't seem to be dirt pick up, being thrown from the tire, and the background scenery is a bit dead, it looks too course makery for me.

edit: this looks much more of a "fun" track and it's 2 generation ago

It's amazing how far we've come...

 

[okami11408]

It's amazing how far we've come...

And we still don't have the premium Subaru 22b rally car.