GT6 Screenshots / Videos

  • Thread starter BkS
  • 10,029 comments
  • 1,395,982 views
User friendliness over accuracy/authenticity? That's a slippery slope my friend.

I do think that mirrors is a very user friendly feature, I hate pushing buttons to see where other cars are. The Deltawing mirror does obstruct a bit of the view, but it doesn't seem to be too bad to me.
 
I do think that mirrors is a very user friendly feature, I hate pushing buttons to see where other cars are. The Deltawing mirror does obstruct a bit of the view, but it doesn't seem to be too bad to me.

You have a very good point 👍
 
30 tracks? I thought GT6 has about 35...

21716374191578693288.jpg


Maybe it means 30 STUNNING tracks not all tracks!!! :D
 
Lately, GT has been terrible for accurately informing us how many tracks are in the games. Clearly there's at least the 34 tracks they've advertised, although again I think we have the count up to around 37 or so.

"30 tracks" clearly just means around or over 30. Would've helped with the "Over" written there, though.
 
I'm still about doubtful that Apricot Hill is one of those new tracks.
 
Why are you doubtful? Remember, we paid for a "new" track that was in GT4.

While I do remember that, I'm just really having a hard time believing they would actually have the insane audacity to call this "new". They would not be fooling anyone.
 
MMX
Still a downgrade from the 50+ GT4 had.

GT4 took 3.5 years and the tracks were of much lower detail.

We'll be getting DLC, although that's not really much of a win if the pricing isn't right. I'd be pleased with a touched-up legacy pack of tracks; if the price is right.
They could easily remake Grindelwald in the course generator for us...


Incidentally, does Ronda count as a track?
 
I'm still about doubtful that Apricot Hill is one of those new tracks.

Well, it's on the official website in the same place as the rest of the ones in that list, so I'd say it's a fair bet that PD considers it to be one of those new tracks.
 
GT4 took 3.5 years and the tracks were of much lower detail.

I think I'm missing your point. Gt4's tracks were as good as they could do at the time. They had 5 plus years to do GT5, and it had way less tracks. Some at the same detail as GT4. :crazy: It seems to me, they misguidedly think having an enormous car count is the most important thing, but I couldn't disagree more. I'd rather have 1200 tracks and 30 cars, as opposed to what we'll get. Now I know 1200 tracks isn't possible, but you see where I'm coming from.

:)
 
MMX
I think I'm missing your point. Gt4's tracks were as good as they could do at the time. They had 5 plus years to do GT5, and it had way less tracks. Some at the same detail as GT4. :crazy: It seems to me, they misguidedly think having an enormous car count is the most important thing, but I couldn't disagree more. I'd rather have 1200 tracks and 30 cars, as opposed to what we'll get. Now I know 1200 tracks isn't possible, but you see where I'm coming from.

:)

I meant that I doubt GT4's tracks took 6 man-months to make, each.
Development tools haven't really changed all that much, the level of detail has.

Also consider the 2-point-something dimensional (2.x D) nature of tracks in games: additional detail is in two dimensions over the surface (both in terrain and "decoration" density), plus a fractional dimension for the verticality of the decorations.
That implies that to double the apparent detail, you need to more than quadruple the data input, i.e. the workload.
 
Back