GT6 News Discussion

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Sadly Scaff not to many of the hardcore would be willing to read stuff in the physics threads or other such associated threads. It's much easier to get caught up in the looks and the fact it's popular, so it must be the best or one of the best out there, because if others were better it wouldn't be so well known, right?

Rather than learn about how things work they decide their bubble is all they need.

 

[Akira AC]

Already!

Did you really say that, how long have PD had to work on this? These areas of the physics engine have moved on only in small degrees since the PS2 days (and were outclassed by two titles back then).

Its not a case of already, but rather at damn last, please don't forget that a good few of us have been raising issues with these areas of GT5 for years, only to get moaned at by those who are perfectly willing to accept them (normally without a solid understanding of exactly what the issues were).

So, because I say what PD themselves announced the addressing of these issues at the GT6 announcement is automatically a sin?

I'm aware this issue has happen over the years, atrocious drafting in GT4 was pretty much an example of it. PD is addressing most of the problems that people had GT5 (I have myself followed the threads, and as of now LFS is the closest thing to a driver simulator alongside Rfactor). Also I didn't mention anything about the GT5 engine being superb or anything similar.

What annoys me (and you completely missed the point) is that PD still supports this thing to this date, more than 24 months after release, all of this include engine tweaks, content addition, hackers control, etc ...And yes, many developers support their game, but the number of tweaks to it since release have been pretty significant. The game is still being updated and supported, despite a new version of it coming in the following weeks, yet people give crap to the updates?

Now I remember why I didn't engage in these discussions, because people who are willing to spotlight anything positive about the game get crushed by people who bring up the same problems that the game has since 2011, ignoring everything that has been done to it and making one be part of the defensive fanboy party.

No hard feelings I guess since I barely play the thing and I'm rather focusing on what GT6, P-cars and next iterations of F1 racing games will offer. But I play them for fun, not seeking for realism neither claiming them to be the ultimate thing.

 

[TokoTurismo]

What annoys me (and you completely missed the point) is that PD still supports this thing to this date, more than 24 months after release, all of this include engine tweaks, content addition, hackers control, etc ...And yes, many developers support their game, but the number of tweaks to it since release have been pretty significant. The game is still being updated and supported, despite a new version of it coming in the following weeks, yet people give crap to the updates?

Now I remember why I didn't engage in these discussions, because people who are willing to spotlight anything positive about the game get crushed by people who bring up the same problems that the game has since 2011, ignoring everything that has been done to it and making one be part of the defensive fanboy party.

Agreed. I still remember what occured on me yesterday for just being alittle enthusiastic. Even I'm starting to feel the same... >_>

 

[doblocruiser]

Agree with Akira AC 👍 Great posts

 

[Chippy569]

People here seem to ignore a trend that has been increasing during the last few years, which is this:

Thanks for posting this... haven't watched extra credits since S1 and forgot just how good it is. Going back and watching a bunch now.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

I also agree with Akira.

 

[Scaff]

So, because I say what PD themselves announced the addressing of these issues at the GT6 announcement is automatically a sin?

Not what I said at all.

You may want to check out my posts related to the GT6 announcement before attempting to apply a view to me that doesn't exist.

I'm aware this issue has happen over the years, atrocious drafting in GT4 was pretty much an example of it. PD is addressing most of the problems that people had GT5 (I have myself followed the threads, and as of now LFS is the closest thing to a driver simulator alongside Rfactor). Also I didn't mention anything about the GT5 engine being superb or anything similar.

I didn't say it was you specifically (rather my post was quite clear that I was addressing the point generally - unless you are now a collective group).

What annoys me (and you completely missed the point) is that PD still supports this thing to this date, more than 24 months after release, all of this include engine tweaks, content addition, hackers control, etc ...And yes, many developers support their game, but the number of tweaks to it since release have been pretty significant. The game is still being updated and supported, despite a new version of it coming in the following weeks, yet people give crap to the updates?

Now I remember why I didn't engage in these discussions, because people who are willing to spotlight anything positive about the game get crushed by people who bring up the same problems that the game has since 2011, ignoring everything that has been done to it and making one be part of the defensive fanboy party.

Yet oddly you differ only with those you complain about in regard to the extreme of the spectrum you sit on. You can see no bad in the updates, they can see no good in the updates.

The point is that yes it has been updated a lot since release, but not all of those updates have been positive, nor have the reasons for some of those updates always been something to applaud. Its been good and bad. Discussion of both aspects is perfectly valid, for example it was great that PD patch GT5 so that we could change gear ratios, but still doesn't explain why a product was released and left for months with a rather critical missing feature.

No hard feelings I guess since I barely play the thing and I'm rather focusing on what GT6, P-cars and next iterations of F1 racing games will offer. But I play them for fun, not seeking for realism neither claiming them to be the ultimate thing.

Good for you. Not all of us share the same reasons and motivation, and as such that doesn't invalidate the point we make.

I do however notice that you didn't bother addressing the odd anomalies I raised questions about, mainly how PD hadn't planned for 1000 cars when they were the ones that announced 1000 cars?

 

[Akira AC]

I didn't say it was you specifically (rather my post was quite clear that I was addressing the point generally - unless you are now a collective group).

Already!

Did you really say that, how long have PD had to work on this? These areas of the physics engine have moved on only in small degrees since the PS2 days (and were outclassed by two titles back then).

Its not a case of already, but rather at damn last, please don't forget that a good few of us have been raising issues with these areas of GT5 for years, only to get moaned at by those who are perfectly willing to accept them (normally without a solid understanding of exactly what the issues were).

You quoted me, besides is hard to not make it "specifically at me" considering the way you presented it.

Yet oddly you differ only with those you complain about in regard to the extreme of the spectrum you sit on. You can see no bad in the updates, they can see no good in the updates.

The point is that yes it has been updated a lot since release, but not all of those updates have been positive, nor have the reasons for some of those updates always been something to applaud. Its been good and bad. Discussion of both aspects is perfectly valid, for example it was great that PD patch GT5 so that we could change gear ratios, but still doesn't explain why a product was released and left for months with a rather critical missing feature.

Agreed, however they could have perfectly go ahead and ignore such issues as many triple A games do, yet they didn't. I agree it has been good and bad, but your are derailing because I was mentioning updates, not the game itself. I know the game at release state was a mess, but some of the critical fixes the game made were through updates, and that's not a reason for diminishing the updates when they have introduce/improve the experience overall.

Good for you. Not all of us share the same reasons and motivation, and as such that doesn't invalidate the point we make.

No one is invalidating your points, but most of the people who enjoy the game(and don't make stupid remarks, not saying yours is, but you know what I'm referring) get their points invalidated simply because they dare to highlight the good things about the game.

I do however notice that you didn't bother addressing the odd anomalies I raised questions about, mainly how PD hadn't planned for 1000 cars when they were the ones that announced 1000 cars?

What is there to address?

I haven't got any official announcement from them explaining how they shovel the 800 models from previous iterations as they had to make up for the inflated number, but it pretty much speaks by itself by looking at the low poly models that weren't even touched, the poor implementation and hiding of the whole affair and how it ultimately end up being the game greatest failure.

They announced 1000 cars, 800 of old gen that made the launch a complete screw up, what else is there to say?

 

[Samus]

His point was you seemed to be placing blame for including "1000 cars" and having to make most of them standard to reach that number on Sony, not PD.

 

[Scaff]

You quoted me, besides is hard to not make it "specifically at me" considering the way you presented it.

The first part was quoting yiou and directed at you, the second part clealry wasn't, as you can see by my use of the word 'those', a collective term.

It is possible to quote someone and also talk generally you know.....

No one is invalidating your points, but most of the people who enjoy the game(and don't make stupid remarks, not saying yours is, but you know what I'm referring) get their points invalidated simply because they dare to highlight the good things about the game.

....as it would seem you feel its perfectly fine for you to do, but unacceptable for me. Odd that!

Agreed, however they could have perfectly go ahead and ignore such issues as many triple A games do, yet they didn't. I agree it has been good and bad, but your are derailing because I was mentioning updates, not the game itself. I know the game at release state was a mess, but some of the critical fixes the game made were through updates, and that's not a reason for diminishing the updates when they have introduce/improve the experience overall.

Nor is it a reason to ignore the issues update have brought.

What is there to address?

I haven't got any official announcement from them explaining how they shovel the 800 models from previous iterations as they had to make up for the inflated number, but it pretty much speaks by itself by looking at the low poly models that weren't even touched, the poor implementation and hiding of the whole affair and how it ultimately end up being the game greatest failure.

They announced 1000 cars, 800 of old gen that made the launch a complete screw up, what else is there to say?

Just the little matter of your claim that PD didn't plan to do it.

You have not explained why they "had to make up for the inflated number", as far as can be seen that was PD's choice and as such would have been planned. Please provide sources if you know of it being anyone else's choice.

 

[O.G]

Let's bring the bar down in here...

Anyone think/know/reckon the tuning aspects; transmission, suspension etc is differentiated from GT5 to GT6?

So, such as different transmission 'tricks' established such as flipping the transmission (refer to the tuning bible in the GT5 Drag Racing forum for more in depth info) will/might be in the transition of GT5 to GT6?

Just curious.

 

[Akira AC]

Just the little matter of your claim that PD didn't plan to do it.

You have not explained why they "had to make up for the inflated number", as far as can be seen that was PD's choice and as such would have been planned. Please provide sources if you know of it being anyone else's choice.

Where did I said it wasn't PD? and how can I provide sources of something I didn't even said?

Only thing remotely close was me saying that Sony made them work on GTPSP alongside GT5, but I never said Sony (or anyone else for that matter) made them go for 1000 models, if they advertised the game with a 1000 models themselves, they are the one to make it happen or "make up for the inflated number". Never suggested otherwise.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Let's bring the bar down in here...

Anyone think/know/reckon the tuning aspects; transmission, suspension etc is differentiated from GT5 to GT6?

So, such as different transmission 'tricks' established such as flipping the transmission (refer to the tuning bible in the GT5 Drag Racing forum for more in depth info) will/might be in the transition of GT5 to GT6?

Just curious.

Nope, no one has a clue beyond some vague notions here or there..no specifics.

 

[Rod Carvalho]

Finally Sony is officially selling Gt6 pre-order

http://store.sony.com.br/br/site/ca...oductCount=4&tabNum=1&id=GRAN+TURISMO+6+-+PS3

It includes the 25 cars from Aniversary edition.

 

[dr_slump]

Brazil only though.

 

[O.G]

Nope, no one has a clue beyond some vague notions here or there..no specifics.

Thought so. Thanks.

 

[Scaff]

Where did I said it wasn't PD? and how can I provide sources of something I didn't even said?

That kind of stuff is what I find annoying, after so much crap with GTPSP right in the middle of their development phase, I find it ridiculous to undermine the damage control that PD has been trying to do since 2011 with the whole standards affair. Sony needed a game (several of them in fact), and PD delivered what they could, people didn't want the standards but the game was advertised with 1000 cars so they just better made those 1000 cars look as good as hey can be even though they were probably never planned in the first place.

It would seem that you did say exactly that.

 

[Akira AC]

It would seem that you did say exactly that.

... if they advertised the game with a 1000 models themselves, they are the one to make it happen or "make up for the inflated number". Never suggested otherwise.

.

 

[Scaff]

.

Then why did you quite clearly state that PD never planned for 1000 cars (which I have directly quoted you as saying).

Please actually answer the question.

If its a mistake then fine, but you quite clearly said it, I've quoted you doing so.


"....probably never planned in the first place"

From a sentence that can only mean one of three things:

• PD didn't plan 1000 cars (in which case who did)
• PD didn't announce 1000 cars (in which case who did)
• PD didn't intent to use standard cars for the 1000 (in which case what did they plan to do after advertising the number)

All of which boil down to pretty much the same claim (from you) that PD didn't plan the 1000 cars, which comes back to my question, who exactly did then?

 

[Akira AC]

When I said "....probably never planned in the first place", first I was speaking for PD themselves from announcing that number, and secondly I used the word "probably" which in it self means "very likely" but not "definitely".

Hence why I used "probably" instead, because I have no source of the planning of the standards from PD in the first place, only perception of this based on how cars are implemented in the game.

Not sure why you are forcing the issue of "you said there was someone or something forcing PD to do it" when I stablish in several paragraphs later that it was PD themselves who made that screw up.

 

[Scaff]

When I said "....probably never planned in the first place", first I was speaking for PD themselves from announcing that number, and secondly I used the word "probably" which in it self means "very likely" but not "definitely".

Then who do you think did if not PD (probably)?

Hence why I used "probably" instead, because I have no source of the planning of the standards from PD in the first place, only perception of this based on how cars are implemented in the game.

In other words an attempt to deflect the issues of standards away from PD based on nothing.

Not sure why you are forcing the issue of "you said there was someone or something forcing PD to do it" when I stablish in several paragraphs later that it was PD themselves who made that screw up.

Simply trying to get you to answer a question about a statement that seems to be based on absolutely no source at all on your part. You bemoan 'fanboys', yet here are simply pulling things out of the air to defend PD over standards, which is to me rather ironic.

 

[wicken]

Delete this post, I misread the article.

 

[doblocruiser]

Jezus Scaff you really start to annoy the hell out of me. It seems that you are just searching for stuff to keep pushing your view and opinion. You never seem to understand when you have to stop....signing out......

 

[Scaff]

Jezus Scaff you really start to annoy the hell out of me. It seems that you are just searching for stuff to keep pushing your view and opinion. You never seem to understand when you have to stop....signing out......

I post in line with the AUP and with my views. If you don't agree with them then either add something constructive in reply or don't.

What you don't get to do is tell someone to stop posting.

 

[Akira AC]

Simply trying to get you to answer a question about a statement that seems to be based on absolutely no source at all on your part. You bemoan 'fanboys', yet here are simply pulling things out of the air to defend PD over standards, which is to me rather ironic.

And this is why I don't follow these arguments, because they end up completely derailed in favour of overlooking what my first post was all about.

Nor do I was defending PD over the standards issue, neither was doing anything else but to showcase why I was bother with other people's opinion over the updates. Yet it became a whole case about something that was merely tangential to the discussion (the mention of the implementation of the standards, which I attributed to PD).

Cherry on the cake:

Simply trying to get you to answer a question about a statement that seems to be based on absolutely no source at all on your part. You bemoan 'fanboys', yet here are simply pulling things out of the air to defend PD over standards, which is to me rather ironic.

After I clearly said that I had no source at all and that was based on how the game is organized, you pushed the issue to undermine my opinion in which was based on my own assumptions about the game.

I hold no grudges or anything against you, in fact I like you(in a non gay way), but this time you were pushing this for the sake of pushing it over something that was clearly explained since my first post. I had no sources other than my conception of the game, but then it was arbitrary lead to a defence of PD, my opinion was based on my perception of the game, but is an opinion, I'm not stating facts over this.

And I think we should take it to PM or something before people start making a bluff of the thread, if there is something else to discuss at this point.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Jezus Scaff you really start to annoy the hell out of me. It seems that you are just searching for stuff to keep pushing your view and opinion. You never seem to understand when you have to stop....signing out......

It's a forum, I guess that concept defeats you.

 

[JTB10000]

This thread is seriously out of control; just calm down, please. Remember this is "GT6 News and Discussion", not "GT6 News and Flame Each Other Back and Forth All Day."

 

[Scaff]

And this is why I don't follow these arguments, because they end up completely derailed in favour of overlooking what my first post was all about.

Nor do I was defending PD over the standards issue, neither was doing anything else but to showcase why I was bother with other people's opinion over the updates. Yet it became a whole case about something that was merely tangential to the discussion (the mention of the implementation of the standards, which I attributed to PD).

Cherry on the cake:

After I clearly said that I had no source at all and that was based on how the game is organized, you pushed the issue to undermine my opinion in which was based on my own assumptions about the game.

I hold no grudges or anything against you, in fact I like you(in a non gay way), but this time you were pushing this for the sake of pushing it over something that was clearly explained since my first post. I had no sources other than my conception of the game, but then it was arbitrary lead to a defence of PD, my opinion was based on my perception of the game, but is an opinion, I'm not stating facts over this.

And I think we should take it to PM or something before people start making a bluff of the thread, if there is something else to discuss at this point.

Not quite sure why you have quoted me twice here?

The point is you were not clear on it at all, quite the opposite, had you been it would not have needed the question asked a number of times, it was not clearly explained in your first post at all and was a legitimate point to discuss.

It doesn't require a move to PM's at all. And yes I did push it to highlight that it was based on nothing. PD made the choice to go down the route they did, why you would try and assign that to someone (still un-named) else still strikes me as a little odd.

This thread is seriously out of control; just calm down, please. Remember this is "GT6 News and Discussion", not "GT6 News and Flame Each Other Back and Forth All Day."

Every post made in the discussion is well within the AUP, please don't take it upon yourself to try and enforce the AUP (incorrectly)

 

[Akira AC]

Then just leave it at that, not to assign blame on PDs faults but it was my mistake for not explain myself properly in the original post.

Under such basis there was a legitimate discussion, but I still find it odd that it end up being seen as me trying to defend a PD position while in the entire of the discussion I was trying to do the opposite showcasing the mistake from PD introducing standards. Again, I should have used a clearer wording.

 

[Scaff]

Then just leave it at that, not to assign blame on PDs faults but it was my mistake for not explain myself properly in the original post.

Under such basis there was a legitimate discussion, but I still find it odd that it end up being seen as me trying to defend a PD position while in the entire of the discussion I was trying to do the opposite showcasing the mistake from PD introducing standards. Again, I should have used a clearer wording.

And that was all I was trying to understand, as your original post seemed to be assigning it to an unknown party.