Is GT getting easier? - A small empirical analysis
- Thread starter zocker_16
- 65 comments
- 4,158 views
- 269
- Ohio
- cheezeburger57
Interesting study. I think to be able to control for wheel usage in later games vs pad usage in earlier games, someone would have to measure their average pad times against their average wheel times and correct the data for the difference.
Even without correcting for that though, I still believe it has gotten at least ever so slightly easier over time. As someone mentioned earlier, designers are catering more and more to the average gamer, who probably has a lot less hours in any given GT title than your average GTPlanet member.
Even without correcting for that though, I still believe it has gotten at least ever so slightly easier over time. As someone mentioned earlier, designers are catering more and more to the average gamer, who probably has a lot less hours in any given GT title than your average GTPlanet member.
- 394
- Florida
- Dark_Motor
I base my theory on changes made to the product which seem aimed at getting more players online. I agree they have not seen the results, but they seem to be going about it all wrong. I don't believe the online play is structured in ways that are conducive to attracting more players. Instead they seem to have restructured the offline career play to placate casual players online who may get turned off by trying to compete with players who have more highly developed skills.
I feel the online play should be structured as an extension of the traditional game and they should not be making drastic changes such as removing major features of the game in order to placate casual players online reluctant to work to improve their skills. I enjoy playing the GT games over very long periods of time. I hope that will remain a feature of GT titles going forward and they don't gut the game for the sake of placating casual online players which is my concern.
Last edited:
- 394
- Florida
- Dark_Motor
Agree 100% But, there does need to be a series of missions or challenges for casual players to work through by skill level that helps them progress over time and awards things that help them get to the next level. Like an online career mode of sorts. That might keep them interested in playing beyond a few online spot races. Real racing has tiers for different levels of competition, why not Gran Turismo?
Last edited:
- 1,033
Well no, I'm saying that I don't think the driving itself is actually harder and that there is probably more at play here than simply how hard the games are. As others have said you have a lot of people who've been playing GT for a very long time now so they have likely improved along with advancements in racing wheels it's not hard why you'd see times improve.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
You are talking in broad generalities when the study undertaken by the OP has very specific parameters. Overall "hard" or "easy" is not the discussion. Re-read the entire OP for further understanding.
- 10,956
- Canada
This is so interesting! 
Love these analysis. Yes GT4, imo, was the hardest GT game for me, while GT6 was rather... Let's say, noob easy. 
Despite that, I don't really mind if any GT is hard as long as their fun, and that was GT4! 
Love these analysis. Yes GT4, imo, was the hardest GT game for me, while GT6 was rather... Let's say, noob easy. Despite that, I don't really mind if any GT is hard as long as their fun, and that was GT4!
- 1,033
I have no issue with the data, the numbers are the numbers. What I take issue with is the conclusion that has been drawn from those numbers.
The data tells us that with each new iteration of GT the record times on the licence tests has moved farther away from the time needed to "gold" the event. Like I said, no issue with that.
The OP then concludes that the GT games are getting easier based on that data. That is what I have a problem with.
Largely because it only shows the record time.
Only having the record time means that only the fastest player in each event is given as data for that event. It's not hard to believe that someone who is getting record times has probably been player for some time and has likely improved since the early GT games. To add to that, the person who scored that record time in GT3 was probably using a DS2 or a very low tech wheel while the people making records in GT6 are probably running T500s.
If the data was compiled using the average time, or the percentage of players who got gold in each event then maybe it would be an easier claim to make. But just having the record time leaves way too much possible variation to claim with any real confidence that the games are getting easier.
- 394
- Florida
- Dark_Motor
If what you say is true, the times being compared to previous license tests times would also improve.
Your premise is predicated on best times being static or fixed in comparison to the license test times.
This is not the case, current best times are not necesarily same as best times 5, 10 or 15 years ago.
Last edited:
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I could be wrong, but I recall for that for GT4, DHolland had every single fastest time in a license test. Or was it GT3? Or both? DHolland is still around and when he enters a TT, he's usually at the top. He won the Nurb Corvette TT last year as I recall, the only one I saw him enter. That alone would speak for consistency in the results. Equipment may have changed and that may be a reason why some of the gaps are larger, but the onus is also upon PD to acknowledge that and make adjustments as necessary, which they didn't obviously.
- 394
- Florida
- Dark_Motor
Exactly... there must be some procedure gone through for setting license test times and then times are set according to those procedures based on where they feel the difficulty level should be and then they set the bar accordingly. Either they deliberately set the bar lower or the procedure for setting it does not accurately reflect the actual difficulty required, in either case the results are the same.
Another way to tell is to run all the license tests and compare them for yourself, something many have already done and stated their results accordingly. Someone will always disagree with that but it's what most players use to determine the differences between successive installments of GT. Kudo's to the OP for attempting to back that up with hard data.
Last edited:
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
If there is a DS3/wheel performance gap, they might also reflect that in the license tests, or simply introduce another level, perhaps a Platinum award which reflects a much higher difficulty and the better result that can be achieved by wheel users and the elite DS3 pilots as well. Platinum could be for accolades only, with all prizes given for achieving gold as it is now.
- 394
- Florida
- Dark_Motor
I think many casual players decide not to try for gold and be content with silver or with just 2 or 3 of the 5 licenses and elect not to complete 100% of the game if they find some challenges too difficult or time consuming for them. Perhaps some content could be added to encourage these players to continue playing in order to improve and some entertaining incentive for doing so to keep them engaged.
Last edited:
- 587
- Zocker16_GTRP
Equipment can have various effects on the level of difficulty.
It´s possible that the new wheels cause a larger gap because the gold times are set for average controller drivers.
So the difficulty is the same for controller drivers through the series but the wheel drivers get faster.
But i think it´s not the only point. The game gets more and more realistic with every new part so driving with controller feels harder than on the previous versions. Small mistakes cost more time than on GT3 and GT4.
The gap between wheel and controller times, based on the physics, also increases. With GT4 it was possible to achieve nearly the same times with controller and wheel at the licenses.
So there´s a need for game designers to adjust the gold times for the controller drivers.
It´s possible that the new wheels cause a larger gap because the gold times are set for average controller drivers.
So the difficulty is the same for controller drivers through the series but the wheel drivers get faster.
But i think it´s not the only point. The game gets more and more realistic with every new part so driving with controller feels harder than on the previous versions. Small mistakes cost more time than on GT3 and GT4.
The gap between wheel and controller times, based on the physics, also increases. With GT4 it was possible to achieve nearly the same times with controller and wheel at the licenses.
So there´s a need for game designers to adjust the gold times for the controller drivers.
- 1,829
- England
- Player_7421
- Player 7421
Yes. The A.l and License tests are nothing compared to what they once where. Oh and its not just that either.
- 330
- Shropshire Lad
- Starcarper
Great study.
I'd just like to add that I know of several people who played Ridge Racer style games that were blown away by the difficulty of GT2. So much so that some rented it and returned it saying that they just hated the game especially those #### licence tests.
GT3 and GT4 were skipped but two of them decided to give GT5 a try. They loved it as you didn't need to do the licence tests to continue through the game. Online was their major time on the game.
Then GT6 and again the licence tests were the only way to go through the levels. After playing online with GT5 they persevered and completed them but not to gold standard. If they had been as difficult as the ones in GT2 I know they wouldn't have bothered with the game.
So you can see where PD get the idea from as I'm sure these two were not the only ones.
I'd just like to add that I know of several people who played Ridge Racer style games that were blown away by the difficulty of GT2. So much so that some rented it and returned it saying that they just hated the game especially those #### licence tests.
GT3 and GT4 were skipped but two of them decided to give GT5 a try. They loved it as you didn't need to do the licence tests to continue through the game. Online was their major time on the game.
Then GT6 and again the licence tests were the only way to go through the levels. After playing online with GT5 they persevered and completed them but not to gold standard. If they had been as difficult as the ones in GT2 I know they wouldn't have bothered with the game.
So you can see where PD get the idea from as I'm sure these two were not the only ones.
- 352
- Playing GT6
- Darth-Krayt
While I appreciate the effort that you put in here to gather and compare the data, I have to say that really think the results are useless to the point you're trying to make (that the GT series is getting continually more easy). The closest thing to that which you MAY be proving is that the license tests themselves have been made easier, which for the most part I agree with though I never really had problems with any GT's license tests over any other's. I think each GT's tests are tailored to each GT's physics.
Besides, GT5 is the "easiest" of the GT's for license tests bar none. FAR more easy than GT6 because you didn't even have to do the tests in GT5 at all. ANd I think that points to the reason as to WHY the license tests have gotten easier. Because they (PD) think (and imo they're right) that people are sick and tired of having to do these license tests every time just to play the game. So they totally removed the license requirements in GT5, but in turn heard people's complaints about that so brought back the requirements for GT6 but kept them easy and just left it up to the player to decide how competetive they want to get with the license times.
In general though, I fully believe the games have gotten harder when it comes to being able to control the cars. ANd by "harder" I really just mean more realistic in that you're learning and need some real driving skill/knowledge. It's bordering on full on sim now, GT1-4 were not even close comparitively. They were much easier to master, the cars and the physics.
Besides, GT5 is the "easiest" of the GT's for license tests bar none. FAR more easy than GT6 because you didn't even have to do the tests in GT5 at all. ANd I think that points to the reason as to WHY the license tests have gotten easier. Because they (PD) think (and imo they're right) that people are sick and tired of having to do these license tests every time just to play the game. So they totally removed the license requirements in GT5, but in turn heard people's complaints about that so brought back the requirements for GT6 but kept them easy and just left it up to the player to decide how competetive they want to get with the license times.
In general though, I fully believe the games have gotten harder when it comes to being able to control the cars. ANd by "harder" I really just mean more realistic in that you're learning and need some real driving skill/knowledge. It's bordering on full on sim now, GT1-4 were not even close comparitively. They were much easier to master, the cars and the physics.
- 394
- Florida
- Dark_Motor
Unless someone has played the early titles very recently, they are just advancing an opinion. IN GENERAL... I feel that GT1 & GT2 are more difficult as far as needing quick reflexes and beginning with GT3 the physics changed so that attributes such as timing and judgement play a much more important role. I will often run races in GT1 or GT2 as a warm-up for the top shelf races in GT3, GT4, & GT5 which are perhaps faster but not as twitchy as GT1 & GT2.
That is a SPECIFIC difference that varies from game to game and is not simply linearly progressive with each new title. As the physics model evolves, different attributes come into play in concordance. I think the point the original OP is trying to make is that newer doesn't always necessarily mean better. Otherwise we wouldn't see decisions made in one title being reversed in subsequent titles when they haven't worked out. This becomes more clear to someone who plays all the titles on a regular basis rather than just having the tunnel vision thing and I think that is a valid point. Maybe the top end of the games has become tougher as the entry levels have eased off a bit.
I think the earlier titles had a purer vision and the success of the series has brought with it many, many other influences, some good and some not so good. I hope GT never tries to become all things to all people because a certain amount of continuity is important. I love playing GT1 & GT2 and I miss the '82 Toyota Starlet Turbo S. Not everyone can drive at world class levels and a car doesn't need to go 200 mph to be fun to drive. There are good reasons some of the old cars are still in the game. New is not always better, just different. The more different things you explore, the better you become at anything.
That is a SPECIFIC difference that varies from game to game and is not simply linearly progressive with each new title. As the physics model evolves, different attributes come into play in concordance. I think the point the original OP is trying to make is that newer doesn't always necessarily mean better. Otherwise we wouldn't see decisions made in one title being reversed in subsequent titles when they haven't worked out. This becomes more clear to someone who plays all the titles on a regular basis rather than just having the tunnel vision thing and I think that is a valid point. Maybe the top end of the games has become tougher as the entry levels have eased off a bit.
I think the earlier titles had a purer vision and the success of the series has brought with it many, many other influences, some good and some not so good. I hope GT never tries to become all things to all people because a certain amount of continuity is important. I love playing GT1 & GT2 and I miss the '82 Toyota Starlet Turbo S. Not everyone can drive at world class levels and a car doesn't need to go 200 mph to be fun to drive. There are good reasons some of the old cars are still in the game. New is not always better, just different. The more different things you explore, the better you become at anything.
- 23,800
- Philippines
The issue here is not to conflate the difficulty of primer events with the difficulty of the game's handling and physics model itself... or the difficulty of the physics model with the realism of the game and its worth as such. No doubt the focus on online play in GT5 going forward has severely affected the depth and quality of the single player experience... but the license tests alone are not a determinant of how difficult the game is.
.
- 456
- 'Murica
- spencer7x7
For me I can say GT6 has the easiest licenses ever, there's less tests, you can see friends times, and driving aids affect times. It's nice to see some concrete data to go along with it.
- 11,215
- Sweden
- eran0004
Nice work!
One problem with using only the fastest time is that it's only possible to say that the top ranking players has posted faster times in relation to the required gold time. Strictly speaking we don't know if it's because the game has gotten easier, if the fastest players have become better, or if they simply are trying harder.
Also, we know nothing about how it looks beneath that #1 time, which is really important to know for two reasons:
1. Is the trend the same for big group as it is for the top players? If the game has gotten easier, then there should be improvements across the entire range.
2. How big is the sample of players?
For GT5 there's a total of 40 players posting their times on that database, while for GT6 there's currently 68 players. For GT4 there are 320 players posting times. For GT3 there's no complete list, but there seems to be about 100-150 players in each test. The bigger the sample, the higher the probability of finding a "spike", i.e. someone who is so much better than everyone else, as shown by the standard deviation curve:
What measuring the fastest time does, is that it only measures the individual that's the furthest to the right in the curve above. Everything behind is unknown.
It's not very likely that the different sizes in sample groups makes a big difference when it comes to GT3 and GT4 vs GT5 and GT6, because the sample is actually larger in GT3 and GT4 so the probability of finding a spike is much higher there. However, when it comes to determining which of GT3 and GT4 that is the hardest, and which of GT5 and GT6 that is the hardest, it very much comes into play. GT3 has only about half the sample size of GT4, and GT5 has around 3/5th the size of GT6.
There is one last thing that we also need to check for: Changes in the group of players.
So, how do we actually test this?
1. Make a list of people who has GT3-GT6 (or even better, GT1-GT6 if we want to test all games)
2. Pick a random sample, say 10 people.
3. Have these people perform license tests in GT1 - GT6 under similar conditions and with similar equipment. Maybe each player could perform each licence test 3 times. If it's too much (it is too much, let's face it - GT4 alone is like 80 tests or something) perhaps we could pick a random sample of 5-10 different license tests per game.
4. Collect their times and do the math.
5. Interview the players to get their perspective of the difficulty level of each game and to get a bit of background knowledge of their previous experience of each game.
6. Write a report
One problem with using only the fastest time is that it's only possible to say that the top ranking players has posted faster times in relation to the required gold time. Strictly speaking we don't know if it's because the game has gotten easier, if the fastest players have become better, or if they simply are trying harder.
Also, we know nothing about how it looks beneath that #1 time, which is really important to know for two reasons:
1. Is the trend the same for big group as it is for the top players? If the game has gotten easier, then there should be improvements across the entire range.
2. How big is the sample of players?
For GT5 there's a total of 40 players posting their times on that database, while for GT6 there's currently 68 players. For GT4 there are 320 players posting times. For GT3 there's no complete list, but there seems to be about 100-150 players in each test. The bigger the sample, the higher the probability of finding a "spike", i.e. someone who is so much better than everyone else, as shown by the standard deviation curve:
What measuring the fastest time does, is that it only measures the individual that's the furthest to the right in the curve above. Everything behind is unknown.
It's not very likely that the different sizes in sample groups makes a big difference when it comes to GT3 and GT4 vs GT5 and GT6, because the sample is actually larger in GT3 and GT4 so the probability of finding a spike is much higher there. However, when it comes to determining which of GT3 and GT4 that is the hardest, and which of GT5 and GT6 that is the hardest, it very much comes into play. GT3 has only about half the sample size of GT4, and GT5 has around 3/5th the size of GT6.
There is one last thing that we also need to check for: Changes in the group of players.
- Has their skill level changed?
- Has their gaming equipment changed? (wheels/pads/monitors/seats)
So, how do we actually test this?
1. Make a list of people who has GT3-GT6 (or even better, GT1-GT6 if we want to test all games)
2. Pick a random sample, say 10 people.
3. Have these people perform license tests in GT1 - GT6 under similar conditions and with similar equipment. Maybe each player could perform each licence test 3 times. If it's too much (it is too much, let's face it - GT4 alone is like 80 tests or something) perhaps we could pick a random sample of 5-10 different license tests per game.
4. Collect their times and do the math.
5. Interview the players to get their perspective of the difficulty level of each game and to get a bit of background knowledge of their previous experience of each game.
6. Write a report
- 587
- Zocker16_GTRP
@eran0004 : Thank you for this comment.
I know about the standard deviation curve and what you say about the number of players is right.
As i said before many players increase the possibility of times far better than gold and increase the gap (especially between GT4 and GT5).
- many players -> bigger gap = easy
- less players -> smaller gap = hard
This would be a point to explain why GT3 is harder than GT4, maybe another 100 players could increase the gap (even i don´t think this is the only effect).
But group size doesn´t explain why GT6 has a bigger gap than any other title.
The standard deviation curve is good to show how driving abilities are spread.
But the times/gaps based on that in fact have a different curve:
GT Academy 2014 final round top 250 times
GT5 TT Nr. 61
Top 1000 of 88271 times.
Times are spread like a square root. And the closer you get to the perfect lap less players can achieve this time. The perfect lap is the ultimate limit based on the physics.
-4σ = 1 of 15787 players, so this could be top 10 on a TT. or 0,5 sec away from a perfect lap
-3σ = 1 of 370 or maybe top 250 of the leaderboard and 1,5 sec off the physical perfect lap.
In fact you can't use this for the Race DB because those who post their times are mainly pros and not casual players so 50 of 150 times on the Race DB are from the top 1% of all GT-Drivers.
The test you´re suggesting of course would be more accurate but it´s a lot of work
Also there would be the huge factor of luck if you only do 3 attempts on every test.
Doing a few attempts is the same like having a small group, variance of the result is very high and also based on other factors.
I know about the standard deviation curve and what you say about the number of players is right.
As i said before many players increase the possibility of times far better than gold and increase the gap (especially between GT4 and GT5).
- many players -> bigger gap = easy
- less players -> smaller gap = hard
This would be a point to explain why GT3 is harder than GT4, maybe another 100 players could increase the gap (even i don´t think this is the only effect).
But group size doesn´t explain why GT6 has a bigger gap than any other title.
The standard deviation curve is good to show how driving abilities are spread.
But the times/gaps based on that in fact have a different curve:
GT Academy 2014 final round top 250 times
GT5 TT Nr. 61
Top 1000 of 88271 times.
Times are spread like a square root. And the closer you get to the perfect lap less players can achieve this time. The perfect lap is the ultimate limit based on the physics.
-4σ = 1 of 15787 players, so this could be top 10 on a TT. or 0,5 sec away from a perfect lap
-3σ = 1 of 370 or maybe top 250 of the leaderboard and 1,5 sec off the physical perfect lap.
In fact you can't use this for the Race DB because those who post their times are mainly pros and not casual players so 50 of 150 times on the Race DB are from the top 1% of all GT-Drivers.
The test you´re suggesting of course would be more accurate but it´s a lot of work
Also there would be the huge factor of luck if you only do 3 attempts on every test.
Doing a few attempts is the same like having a small group, variance of the result is very high and also based on other factors.
- 6,911
- United Kingdom
Just playing games you can see it is getting much easier, not drivers getting faster or trying harder. I started doing some GT2 licence tests a while back and some of the braking ones, you have to aim close to perfection to Gold.
- 589
- United States
I find GT6 to be much easier than the rest, mainly because it feels more natural. That being said, I find driving a car IRL way easier than GT6. I guess it depends on what you're used to.
- 496
- Canada, Québec
- LET_QUEBEC_IN
I'm playing Gt2 right now & gold all licence test & and i have to say that the hardest one were in IA licence. The IA-3 was the hardest 1 to get gold seriously next to S licence it made it look easyer to gold S licence.
Name of licence test : practical cornering 9
Track : Apricot Hill
Car : NSX
Launch speed at 62mph
Gold time : 30.000 ( basically the 1st checkpoint)
I have to say that the number of mistake i had was near of 0.0.100 sec in a run of 30s.
In S licence they give you more room for mistake because it 1 full lap but for me it made things easyer to me.
IA-2 was in a TVR Griffith 1 of the rare licence test that a drift could improve your time on 1 corner.
Name of licence test : practical cornering 9
Track : Apricot Hill
Car : NSX
Launch speed at 62mph
Gold time : 30.000 ( basically the 1st checkpoint)
I have to say that the number of mistake i had was near of 0.0.100 sec in a run of 30s.
In S licence they give you more room for mistake because it 1 full lap but for me it made things easyer to me.
IA-2 was in a TVR Griffith 1 of the rare licence test that a drift could improve your time on 1 corner.
- 11,215
- Sweden
- eran0004
@zocker_16 Just flip the axis of that diagram and it'll be the end of a standard deviation curve.
The problem is that when you only measure the best time you get unreliable data, as what you measure is in fact the skill of an individual rather than the difficulty of a test. And the problem increases when you compare different tests, because there are different individuals in the top. So it's essentially comparing one set of skills to another set of skills and then trying to make a conclusion about the tests.
Imagine a school in which there are 3 different classes of the same age. There are three different math tests and the principle wants to know how hard each test is, so each class is tested and every class gets a different test than the next class. Then they take the top result from each class and compare them against each other. Based on that, do they really know anything about how hard each test is?
Not really, at best they can use the results to make an educated guess about it. Because:
So to get a reliable picture we need to measure a greater sample of the population.
Let's say that there are two different license tests, both with a gold time of 30 seconds. In both tests, the top player managed a time 2 seconds faster than gold. These results would show that both tests are of the same difficulty level.
What the results doesn't show, is that at test one, 90% of all players managed to get gold time, while at test two only 40% managed to get gold.
Did our results then really show how difficult these tests were, or did they in fact show something else?
The problem is that when you only measure the best time you get unreliable data, as what you measure is in fact the skill of an individual rather than the difficulty of a test. And the problem increases when you compare different tests, because there are different individuals in the top. So it's essentially comparing one set of skills to another set of skills and then trying to make a conclusion about the tests.
Imagine a school in which there are 3 different classes of the same age. There are three different math tests and the principle wants to know how hard each test is, so each class is tested and every class gets a different test than the next class. Then they take the top result from each class and compare them against each other. Based on that, do they really know anything about how hard each test is?
Not really, at best they can use the results to make an educated guess about it. Because:
- While the average math skill in each class is pretty equal when compared to each other, the variation is much higher when you look at only the top student in each class. So it's hard to say if a different result is because the tests are different or because the students are different.
- The results of the top ranking students doesn't say anything about how hard it was for the rest of the class. It might have been a test where almost everyone got all the right answers, or a test where almost everyone failed. We don't know.
So to get a reliable picture we need to measure a greater sample of the population.
Let's say that there are two different license tests, both with a gold time of 30 seconds. In both tests, the top player managed a time 2 seconds faster than gold. These results would show that both tests are of the same difficulty level.
What the results doesn't show, is that at test one, 90% of all players managed to get gold time, while at test two only 40% managed to get gold.
Did our results then really show how difficult these tests were, or did they in fact show something else?
