GT6 News Discussion

[maxpontiac]

600?

Which includes manufacturer races like those from GT4 hopefully. Otherwise, whhhaaaaaaaaat? Personally, I expect a lot, but how do you mean?

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't GT4 have around 500 of them?

Edit;

 

[another_jakhole]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't GT5 have around 500 of them?

I plead ignorance. ugh Sorry, sir.

 

[Tenacious D]

A lot of people agreeing with you makes you right, then? Tell that to Galileo.

Yes, and this is the same condescending faux argument your side makes from time to time. Oh yes, scientific facts are totally equal with the discreet enjoyment levels humans have for things like food, TV shows and video games. Thank you for proving my point that you are sure awesome to yourself and think everyone who has a working brain stem should think the same things as you do.

 

[maxpontiac]

I plead ignorance. ugh Sorry, sir.

Typo in my quote to you. It was supposed to say GT4. I expect GT6 to follow suit.

My bad.

 

[Luminis]

Yes, and this is the same condescending faux argument your side makes from time to time. Oh yes, scientific facts are totally equal with the discreet enjoyment levels humans have for things like food, TV shows and video games. Thank you for proving my point that you are sure awesome to yourself and think everyone who has a working brain stem should think the same things as you do.

You're reading too much into things and put too many words in people's mouths they never said. Okay, let my try this one: More people eat at McDonald's than at that steak house I like. Am I wrong for liking it, just because the majority doesn't agree with me? Do I have to start eating McDonald's more often? Do I have to claim to like it just because other prefer it? And, most importantly, does that make McDonald's objectively better?

Whether it is scientific fact or not does not even have any bearing on it: The majority vote does not make you right. The majority of people enjoying something does not translate to it being objectively superior and it does not strip the minority of their right to dislike whatever it is we are talking about.

Besides, I'd like to ask the same thing of you I asked MeanElf: Prove to me that sales are a good way to objectively measure quality. Even for comparable products.

Oh, and last but not least... The Need for Speed franchise, according to EA at least, sold more than the Gran Turismo franchise. If sales are, as you are implying, are good way to measure quality, why aren't you liking the NfS franchise better than Gran Turismo? (Ignore that bit if you do like the NfS franchise better).

Edit:
Just to get this off my chest and be clear about it. I didn't intend to derail this whole thread by using that analogy. I would like to apologise for doing so, as I drastically underestimated the impact that using said analogy would have, despite stating my intentions quite extensively.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Pretty much an entire page of ridiculous discussion being deleted hasn't seemed to change anybody's attitudes around here, so I'll make it clearer: play the ball, not the man. If you have nothing to add to a discussion past personal digs at members - not any sort of rebuttal of their points - I highly recommend not posting.

 

[Tornado]

A lot of people agreeing with you makes you right, then? Tell that to Galileo.

 

[MeanElf]

...Deliver proof that the sales on popularity of whatever hinge on nothing but its quality, that it is not affected by irrational preferences, emotional attachments, marketing and whatever else you can think of. Go on, prove to me that sales are a good measure of how good something is. Go on, I'll wait.

Forgive the tardiness - I've just spent ten minutes trying to find your 'Hitler' post but cannot. I even checked other threads.

Either something is glitchy with my connection, or the site's refresh rate - or it has been removed ninja style...along with mine and AJ's as well as a few others.

Without the posts to refer to, I cannot answer fully other than to say that I wasn't talking about sales proving quality. I was citing Godwin's law (your choice if you chose to ignore it) to point out that you have lost an argument if you (or anyone) resorts to that analogy.

Personally I feel that sales mean popularity and do not necessarily have anything to do with quality. Quality being a subjective item, can indeed play a role in getting people to buy/play a game, but it isn't the only reason.

Subjective reasons are why most seem to like GT as a whole. Bieber and all the rest are equally subjective.

Anyway, I will return to this when the mystery of the missing posts can be cleared up (link anyone?)

Besides, it's now my wife's birthday, so I'm a signin' off for now...

 

[Luminis]

Personally I feel that sales mean popularity and do not necessarily have anything to do with quality. Quality being a subjective item, can indeed play a role in getting people to buy/play a game, but it isn't the only reason.

Which would be my exact point of view.

Anyway, I will return to this when the mystery of the missing posts can be cleared up (link anyone?)

Mods doing mod stuff.

Besides, it's now my wife's birthday, so I'm a signin' off for now...

Have a good one

 

[Tenacious D]

Whether it is scientific fact or not does not even have any bearing on it:

Yeah, sure, unless you're using it in an argument. You guys and your goofy colored fonts...

The majority vote does not make you right. The majority of people enjoying something does not translate to it being objectively superior and it does not strip the minority of their right to dislike whatever it is we are talking about.

THAT is an entirely different matter, and while some have tried to shout down one side or the other, I'm unaware of anyone suddenly taking on mod powers and keeping you from stating your case. I see your purple text kind of all over this thread, non?

But to your point, you might as well drop that line of argument. You, Simon/Samus, Tornado, whoever, for one simple reason.

There is NO scientifically, entymologically or whatever systematic method to ascertain discreetly and universally what is "good." You have nothing more than this, as to how it relates to your argument, courtesy of Dictionary.com:

good [good] adjective

1. morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man.

2. satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health.

3. of high quality; excellent.

4. right; proper; fit: It is good that you are here. His credentials are good.

And it runs on for 40-plus more increasingly irrelevant definitions. And this is MY point. It is irrelevant what you think of something in the context of how someone else relates to and enjoys something. Especially when this concerns millions of people. This isn't like discussing whether the Earth is flat or water wet. This is a matter of personal preference, enjoyment, and belief, which has no discreet measurable and definable quantum.

Take any game example. If one million people say a game is good, and you have one hundred who insist it isnt... well, one side is wrong. You may be huffy and offended if you can point out things you don't like as mortally offensive and crimes against nature, but you're on your own if the mob don't care.

Take your McDonald's example. Suppose you went into a Mickie D's and started telling people there that they were nuts for eating there, because the food available anywhere else was better. I can see the scene, and the quaint resulting aftermath. The reason you would be completely out of line is because people eat McD's fast food for all the reasons you know full well. They want something right now. They want something remotely cheap. Many even like it. NO ONE keeps going to a food joint they think is bad, or bad value. Especially not by the millions.

Take that lovely NFS example. Sure, many of us here consider it a bad series. It's kind of a joke around here. Millions of people don't agree, like it, and keep buying it. Because they don't play it for the same reasons we play whatever racer. It doesn't matter that it's "lame" street racing, or the physics are off, the sounds inaccurate, there are no rules or black flags or whatever. That stuff is irrelevant to those who want to enjoy that kind of experience. We don't like it, and the consensus here is quite a bit different from the "Needers." Well, different strokes, what else can you say?

And of course, this brings us to the lovely, heartwarming, celebration of community and life known as Gran Turismo.

You almost act like your earthshaking proclamations about it have never been heard before. Never discussed here. Well, we have heard it all before. The physics are wrong. The sounds are wrong. The A.I. is the worst in the history of video games. The Standard cars and tracks are crimes against the multiverse. Hello! Old news. Yes, we still debate these matters because that's what humans do in communities, like this one. And we fight sometimes like cats and dogs because in almost every area, we disagree on how good or bad some aspect is. Because "good" and "bad" are perceptual and opinion driven, as the Dictionary.com definition indicates, and humans are not in harmony on the boundaries. Look, almost everyone agrees that the physics in GT5 aren't perfect. Some things are off. The sounds on a multitude of cars aren't accurate. For some, the level of badness is intolerable. For others, the level of goodness is just fine.

Who's right? This is my answer.

You may not like the reality of the situation, but that's the way it is. Have fun griping. Just don't be surprised if not everyone agrees with you. They don't agree with me all the time either, and somehow I still sleep at night.

 

[JohnBM01]

Maybe it's the turnaround time between GT5 and GT6 that has me concerned. Maybe what is strange to realize is that GT5 came out in November 2010, and here we are at about August 2013. Is Gran Turismo 6 going to seem like an upgraded GT5 or a completely different GT? And what will GT6 provide to fill the disappointing elements of GT5? Something just tells me that GT6 probably won't be as huge an improvement or as huge of a title to really offset the sting of GT5's misses. I'm skeptical for the most part, but I am still very much interested in GT6 moving forward.

 

[Luminis]

There is NO scientifically, entymologically or whatever systematic method to ascertain discreetly and universally what is "good."

Do you even realise that you are agreeing with me? There being no way to measure whether something is "good" includes sales as a measurement of that. Which. Is. What. I. Have. Been. Saying. All. Along.

Seriously, what do you think have I been trying to get across? Nothing more that you can't measure a game's "goodness" by how many copies it sells. What's so hard to grasp about that, especially since you basically said so yourself numerous times, even outright in that last post of yours.

Take any game example. If one million people say a game is good, and you have one hundred who insist it isnt... well, one side is wrong. You may be huffy and offended if you can point out things you don't like as mortally offensive and crimes against nature, but you're on your own if the mob don't care.

Until you realize that you can't prove either side wrong. Neither side is factually wrong or right. Why? Well...

There is NO scientifically, entymologically or whatever systematic method to ascertain discreetly and universally what is "good."

That's why neither side can be proven wrong or right. All you're saying is that the majority is right because they're the majority. It's opinion versus opinion, neither of which is fact. How, again, does the amount of people who share a given opinion have any bearing on whether it is "more right" than another opinion? It might be more accepted, but that's it.

Besides, I like how you're dragging this discussion back to whether or not I like Gran Turismo 5. You seem obsessed with the thought of me not liking it, or something. If you haven't noticed: I didn't even bother with criticising the game itself for quite some posts. Why? Because, to me, the discussion at hand is rather off-topic (which is why I'd better stop soon), because the sole topic I intend to discuss at the moment is whether you can measure whether a game is good. You can't, as you handily pointed out. This includes sales and the amount of fans who like a game.

These millions are not wrong for liking the game. These non-fans aren't wrong for not liking it, because you can't factually estimate whether the game in question is good (non-measurable, non-quantifiable adjective, largely based on non-factual things like morale and personal preference). As such, how can you claim that one side has to be wrong? That's the beauty about this sort of stuff: You can agree to disagree. See, I can agree to disagree with you on Gran Turismo 5.

What I am not agreeing to disagree with is that the number of sales and/or supporters is a measurement of the quality of a given game - as it is evident that a lot of factors will influence these numbers. And I will repeat myself one last time: That is all I am saying. It is incredible that this is being dragged out like this...

 

[Denilson]

Tenacious D and Luminis:
I like your discussion. Both of you got good arguments and are really good at keeping the discussion at a good level. 👍

But I'd like to ask...
What determines quality?
I agree with Tenacious D that it's up the each individual, and that quality is subjective (I'm sure Luminis would agree).
And I certainly don't think it's the majority, no matter how big (I'm sure Tenacious D would agree), that determines quality.


I.e fans at a football game say: "why does'nt he let player X in and sub player Y. Player X got so much more quality!"
Well, that's because the coach, who's hired by the club to be very good at this does'nt agree with the majority (the 80000 people in the stands).
Why is the coach better at determine quality than the 80000 in the stands?
I'd say that's because he requires more from his players than the crowd can see.
The coach got higher or different standards when judging quality compared to the crowd. That's why he gets payed, and the fans pay..

So, standards and requirements are what separates the coach from the crowd.

Which leads us back to GT6...
If 80000 gamers think NFS is the game, it's good enough for them. And that's fine! 👍

But one guy don't think that the physics in NFS are on par with his expectations.
What are his expectations?
Maybe his expectations are a more true to life behaviour of the cars in the game.
And if GT6 does a better job to him, compared to NFS, he'll think GT6 is of a better quality.

So it all comes down to what we're talking about.
To me, NFS is of a higher quality in terms of how you can customize your cars.
To me, GT6 is of a higher quality in terms of driving physics.

Back to the 80000 football fans on the stands..
The crowd think player X is of higher quality because he's fast and got a great shot.
The coach think player Y is of a higher quality because he always judge situations properly and never loses the ball.

So, again, different opinions.
Are both right?
Yes, both are right, cause every single one of the 80000 fans like a fast guy with a good shot. So the fans are right.
But the coach like a guy who never comit mistakes and never loses the ball.


So, once again, what are we discussing here?
Are we discussing from a simulation type of view, or are we discussing from an arcade kind of view?

Since GT6 is "The Real Driving Simulator", I'd say we discuss from a true-to-real-life point of view here.
And if some users want more than what PD is providing, they got higher standards, and will therefore not be happy with the game.
And other users think it's perfect what PD provides, and will therefore be happy with the game.

However, higher expectations and requirements from a football coach means he will sack a player that the majority likes, because he wants a, to him, higher quality player in the squad.

Just because the majority are happy with NFS, does'nt mean that others can't have a higher set of standards (quality?).

A guy with higher standards will often come a cross as an elitist (spelling?). Seem arrogant and complains..
But facts are he just got higher expectations.
A guy with a lower set of standards will often come a cross as ignorant and foolish..
But facts are he's just happy as it is..

 

[Luminis]

I think you summed it up quite well, Denilson. 👍

There is no right or wrong here, there are just expectations that are different for every person. For some, they're met; for some, they're exceeded; for some, they're not met. That's a great way to look at it, actually. You can't fault someone for wanting a top notch simulator and you can't fault someone for being happy with something that isn't a top notch simulator.

There is stuff that can be measured, compared and discussed rather easily... But the above can't. I'm happy to end the discussion on that note 👍 Thanks, Denilson, for summarizing the whole debate like that

 

[another_jakhole]

No one has ever said that GT or GT5 is perfect as is. Most people don't dispute the posts that point out what can be improved.

 

[A_Higher_Place]

Stumbled into EB games today... said the release was October 31st.

Wish it were true...

 

[Tenacious D]

I'm enthralled with the last few posts, because it seems like some kind of kumbaya moment.

I get the feeling that Luminis has been exaggerating his issues to make them seem dire to jab Polyphony into action. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he's typing out of both sides of his keyboard, which it kind of seems like too.

And then there's me. I'm happy to have GT5 in my sweaty palms. I'm also grumpy about a number of things too. Now, maybe I'm typing out of both sides of my keyboard. But it's one of those things that a number of posters here have really high standards. I kind of do too, really high standards. I'm one of the guys who wants Gran Turismo to have a bunch of PC sim elements in it, even to giving us events with full league rules and requirements, flag marshals and all that. Optionally, so that I can have them and adjust to them, and the kids who just want a fun race can have assists on and skip all that rules stuff. GT6 will likely not have many of these features, but some, maybe. A bunch of us want a level of physics on par with the best PC sims, and even better, like real life. Kaz is enthusiastic about including everything from real world racing in Gran Turismo before much longer, so we'll see.

But suppose we don't have anything much more than we had in GT5. Would I be disappointed? Sure, a little, but I won't fold my arms and grump about it. There will be a ton of things I'll love about it.

Take the sound issue, one of the most hotly debated topics on the net. Some people just can't stand to play GT5 because of the sound quality. I think they're nuts. Now admittedly, I have a superb, delicious audiophile sound system that people used to swing by just to check out their CDs on till they got their own. It makes GT5 sound incredible, even with some of the weenie sound samples. Still, I've heard it on dinky bookshelves and TVs that didn't sound very good. It did sound rather cruddy. But when my turn came to race, I still had a blast. I want sounds to improve too, but I'm not going to sell my game if race cars don't hurt my ears.

I hate the XP system, and how it locked me out of certain races and buying certain cars in the early days. I hate the Paint Shop that has NO PAINT, and the fact that I usually have to BUY a freaking car to turn into paint so I can paint a car the color I want. I don't like the fact that the good, fairly competitive bots are in Arcade Mode. I don't like the fact that there is no Livery Editor, and that out of one thousand rides, there are only seventeen Race Moddable cars! Just to throw you Standard haters a bone, I don't like the fact that Standard cars only look really good in Photo Mode, in which they usually look pretty darn sweet, surprisingly like the Premiums sometimes.

There are a lot of things I don't like about GT5. And yet I love the thing in spite of the shortcomings. I want Gran Turismo to advance, but I trust Kaz and the team to deliver, because they have in the past. They have a long history of delivering quality to us. Those who say that Kaz and PD don't listen to us are ignoring a LOT of things they did over the many months of GT5's life.

And the one thing I quibble with is the way people couch their arguments. If they find the sound, physics, A.I. or "whatever" intolerable, that's one thing. But when they go on to insist that their standards are universal standards that all sane people agree to, that's where I not so humbly disagree. Not-as-good can be a much different thing than bad, and that's my position regarding GT5, and what's likely to come in GT6.

 

[machschnel]

But when they go on to insist that their standards are universal standards that all sane people agree to, that's where I not so humbly disagree.

Take the sound issue, one of the most hotly debated topics on the net. Some people just can't stand to play GT5 because of the sound quality. I think they're nuts.

Oh dear

 

[Luminis]

But when they go on to insist that their standards are universal standards that all sane people agree to, that's where I not so humbly disagree.

If that is what you've been reading into it, I'd say that I've lost all hope to make anything clear to you.

I think it's been made clear for the last few pages that what makes a game good to one person doesn't have to apply to the next and from what I've seen, nobody said that their idea of what makes a good game is universal. And then, there's you, always circling back to Gran Turismo, even if it wasn't directly involved in the whole matter, seemingly obsessed by the idea that someone might be taking jabs at PD or Sony.

Some people just can't stand to play GT5 because of the sound quality. I think they're nuts.

Talk about insisting that your standards are universal.

You have been contradicting yourself multiple times, you've failed to answer how sales are a good way to measure how good game is (which is what you initially disagreed with me about, right? Because, remember, that was the only point I wanted to make) and you're constantly entangling yourself in some weird arguments about stuff nobody was saying. I don't know what you think's going on here, really. Gran Turismo's quality wasn't even the topic for the last few pages, and still you're going on about exactly that, again and again.

I'm very sorry, but you're the Don Quijote of GTPlanet, it seems. Dang it, man, these are windmills you're attacking, not giants! But, I, for one, have said what I wanted to say. I've made my points, and seems some folks understood what I was trying to get across, so I'll leave it at that. You're free to feel like you've had the last word and "won" the debate if you want to. If it makes you fell better, just pretend that I've admitted that Gran Turismo is good and that I like it better than other racing games. I'll hear nothing of it any more, either way.

Have a good day.

 

[MeanElf]

Which would be my exact point of view.

Yes indeed, I think it was the analogy that derailed things.

Mods doing mod stuff.

That would explain it.

Have a good one

Thanks, it was indeed fun

 

[Johnnypenso]

Deleted...discretion is the better part of valour...lol

 

[LeMansAid]

Take any game example. If one million people say a game is good, and you have one hundred who insist it isnt... well, one side is wrong.

You really believe this? Mob rules?..... \m/

If you are with the million, and apply that concept universally, you must be missing out on some of life's most wonderful things.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

^ That goes both ways

 

[PletdeKoe]

You guys always make me laugh! Arguing on the internet is just so funny.

The awnser to all your opinions and questions is:

Who cares?!

 

[MeanElf]

...The awnser to all your opinions and questions is:

Who cares?!

Well, hearing other viewpoints can be fun but the true answer to the question is: whatever suits you is best

 

[Samus]

This is a discussion forum you know? It's kinda the point.

 

[C_Raccoon23]

You guys always make me laugh! Arguing on the internet is just so funny.

The awnser to all your opinions and questions is:

Who cares?!

I have to question why you're on a forum then.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You guys always make me laugh! Arguing on the internet is just so funny.

The awnser to all your opinions and questions is:

Who cares?!

Most of us do.
Thats why we are on GTP.
You know the site dedicated to the Gran Turismo series?


Anyway, sales figures can be indicative of a good game, however it is light years away from establishing any conclusive standard.

Thousands of people bought into investing billions with Bernie Madoff, including sports and movie stars.
From all indications, he was a financial genius and was making them tons of money.
The conclusive standard was something else entirely.

With GT5 you have a unique situation as well.
Prior to its release PD had built a reputation with high quality games and the sales figures indicated that.
However GT5 was far below prior standards.
(Universally I don't believe anyone who played the GT series prior to GT5 could dispute that)

So how many of the ten million GT5 sales were made on prior reputation?
I know my purchase was.

BTW thats why many investment ads have the disclaimer:
"earnings records may not be indicative of future results"

 

[Johnnypenso]

However GT5 was far below prior standards.
(Universally I don't believe anyone who played the GT series prior to GT5 could dispute that)

Would you like to make a wager on that? I figure he or they will be along shortly

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Would you like to make a wager on that? I figure he or they will be along shortly

No, there's always one in every crowd.
Or possibly more than one.

Perhaps I should edit that to say, " dispute that with a straight face".