Lots of Games have it Now. Should GT 5 have a Rewind Option?

[alfy13]

You are making generalizations... yes a lot of casuals are buying GT and some of them do know what they are getting into.

But I have friends who have copies of GT on the shelf that they gave up on an hour into it, just no fun, all frustartion. I have friends who won't play GT becuase it's so frustrating.




.

But I still do not see how rewind fixes the issue with causual players. Wouldnt they still be frustrated even if they had rewind? Since they are making the same mistakes over and over again, which caused them to be frustrated in teh first place?

The way I see rewind, is the way I see the caculator. A caculator is there to help you with math problems, but it doesnt teach how to understand the math problem, since it gives you the answer . You never learn by taking shortcuts.

 

[Devedander]

But I still do not see how rewind fixes the issue with causual players. Wouldnt they still be frustrated even if they had rewind? Since they are making the same mistakes over and over again, which caused them to be frustrated in teh first place?

The way I see rewind, is the way I see the caculator. A caculator is there to help you with math problems, but it doesnt teach how to understand the math problem, since it gives you the answer . You never learn by taking shortcuts.

Well the theory is they wouldn't make the same mistake over and over, they would make it once, immediately get to try again seeing if a certain change made it better, and if not, try another idea immediately again until it did work. Remember, rewind lets you redo but you have to actually DO it in the end.

It's not like you can do a corner badly, hit the rewind button and then magically be through the corner, rewind just lets you try that corner again, immediately without having to go into a seperate practice mode and find a similar corner or drive another lap to try again or turn around and set yourself up for another pass.

For instance my GF likes racing games, but GT is frustrating for her because one screw up will likely put you out of the race (and if you are a lower skilled player, recovering from a spinout to place is near impossible) and that's not fun just frustrating. Also by the time she has made a whole lap, she doesn't really remember the corner she had the problem on, and why the problem came up and so repeats it as if it were the first time. This is also frustrating for her.

Rewind would let her go off a corner, rewind down the straight and maybe she thinks the ebrake will get her around the corner. She can try that, and when it obviously fails, she rewinds again, maybe if she turns sooner, so she tries that, no go still off into the dirt... rewind, maybe brake earlier, whoa hit the brakes too early and crawled around the corner... but it's progress, one more rewind... finds a good braking spot, hits the corner decently, on her way and the next time around the track she doesn't have to worry about what she tried the last 4 times laps ago and try to come up with a new attack plan inthe heat of the race, she knows what works, hits the corner and holds her position!

That's how rewind would work.

The calculator analogy is a bit flawed... a calcluator would be more akin to bspec, you can watch the race driven correctly, but it doesn't give you any ability to learn about them.

The closest math analogy I can think of would be rewind is like trying to redo a problem right after you go it wrong. While it's still fresh in your mind exactly what you did and why it didn't work so you can easily apply it to your next attempt. Currently with only laps to practice, it's like doing a math problem, finding out you got it wrong, but not being able to try again until tomorrow, meanwhile you have a ton of other math problems to learn and complete in the mean time and so by the time tomorrow gets here, you aren't able to use your previous experience directly towards your next try as it's hazed by all that has happened between the two attempts.

 

[Dravonic]

I am not arguing for it, I am arguing to not leave it out based on flawed logic. It doesn't effect me directly much whether it's there or not, but I think it's idiotic to leave it out based on ill informed and flawed, fear based logic.

Just like gay marriage. I am not going to be marrying any men, so it doesn't effect me, but I don't think it should be banned becuase some people are afraid it will somehow ruin their heterosexula marriages.

Then can you please care to explain to me how is my logic flawed?

I'll try to put it as simple as it can be:

What kind of game is GT?
A real driving simulator.

Is rewind part of real driving?
No.

Should it be left out of the simulation then?
Not necessarily. It's proven to be a handy learning tool and could be used as such.

Can it be used during a race?
No.

Why?
Because then the game would not be a real driving simulator anymore.

You can argue whatever you want, you just can't change the fact that you can't add rewind to the game without changing what it is.

With rewind, you would have a simulator with the option to void the simulation. If you want to be able to void the simulation, why do you want to simulate it in the first place?

You seem to want to explain to everyone but me

I don't really care if rewind is in or not, I'm just telling you it won't be in. Not because of flawed logic, but because this feature would single-handedly turn Gran Turismo into an arcade game. An arcade game that can be used as a simulator if you so choose, but an arcade game nonetheless.

You see, if your simulation doesn't have damage, or tire deformation, etc, it's a limited simulation. However, it's still a simulation. In the other hand, if your simulation has something that doesn't exist in the situation you're simulating, it's not a simulation anymore.

Rewind gives you the choice to have a simulator or not. Well, I always thought the game was "The real driving simulator" not "The real driving simulator, if you want it to"

Rewind is great, it's fun, it can help you learn, it helps the casual players, but it doesn't belong in a simulator.

Where is the proof that rewind is a handy learning tool Dravonic ?.

I thought it was obvious... rewind allows you to easily repeat a specific part of the track. Since the training is basically repetition, it helps in your learning. I don't think it's arguable really.

Sure, it doesn't have to be rewinding specifically. If you have a tool that allows you to place your car in an arbitrary part of the track in an arbitrary speed, it would be just as helpful or even more helpful than rewind.

 

[Joey D]

Maybe it's saying that to YOU, and maybe some others will take it like that. But what it's saying to ME is "hey casual driver who hates GT because it's so frustratingly hard, we hear ya and we have put something in so you can enjoy this great game as much as the other guys. Now you have some recourse for your mistakes, use it how you like. If you think its fun to rewind like crap and do crazy things just to rewind out of them, have a ball, it's your $60! But if you want to get better but just couldn't get over the hump before, here's a great way for you to work at it, use this tool to get your feet on the ground and then when you feel comfortable, take the training wheels off and see where you can go from there!"

Win! This statement is full of it, and thus being quoted again for its truthfulness.

This pretty much hit the nail on the head, at least for me and I really couldn't agree more with it.

 

[Exorcet]

I don't really care if rewind is in or not, I'm just telling you it won't be in. Not because of flawed logic, but because this feature would single-handedly turn Gran Turismo into an arcade game. An arcade game that can be used as a simulator if you so choose, but an arcade game nonetheless.

You see, if your simulation doesn't have damage, or tire deformation, etc, it's a limited simulation. However, it's still a simulation. In the other hand, if your simulation has something that doesn't exist in the situation you're simulating, it's not a simulation anymore.

Rewind gives you the choice to have a simulator or not. Well, I always thought the game was "The real driving simulator" not "The real driving simulator, if you want it to"

Rewind is great, it's fun, it can help you learn, it helps the casual players, but it doesn't belong in a simulator.



I thought it was obvious... rewind allows you to easily repeat a specific part of the track. Since the training is basically repetition, it helps in your learning. I don't think it's arguable really.

Sure, it doesn't have to be rewinding specifically. If you have a tool that allows you to place your car in an arbitrary part of the track in an arbitrary speed, it would be just as helpful or even more helpful than rewind.

Double Standard. To say rewind would make a game arcade, but leaving out tire deformation will not is crazy. You are adamant in announcing that a simulator cannot be a training tool whatsoever. Unless GT stops being a driving sim and becomes an attempt to replicate driving a car and only driving a car with nothing else in the game, adding rewind to GT in no way reduces the realism (And yes there is a huge difference here). On the other hand, leaving out tire deformation certainly does reduce realism. With rewind in the game, and perfect physics, you could imitate any car on any track, no debate. No tire deformation, no rewind, but all other physics perfect and the game is less realistic than the rewind version. There's no way around it. At worst, rewind would make GT a limited simulation by your definitions.

You're right saying you can't rewind in a race, but that's taken care of in GT because rewind can't be used when more than one person is playing. When it's someone by himself, it's free game. If he wants to race, he won't use rewind. If he's practicing, he can use rewind if he wants. If he's playing GT as a game and not a sim, he's welcome too (just like everyone who plays only on stnd physics, an option to void the simulation as you say, as would being able to turn damage off/not have damage, and many other things. All of this makes that statement of yours I bolded void because PD has added plenty to go against simulation. By the way standard physics and invincible cars don't exist, making GT an arcade game by your underlined statement).

Your bold underline statement hangs with no support. You simply state it and give no reasons why. If some track section mode is added, put rewind in it and make the section mode even better. You'll get whatever it is you claim the section mode provides, and then get infinitely more control over your experimentation with driving thanks to rewind. Section mode won't replace rewind, but it can compliment it.

These attacks on rewind only stem from the lack of familiarity with the feature and/or the fact that GT extremists associate it with Forza, which is of course the source of all the world's evil. That's why your logic is flawed.

 

[irnbrutwinturbo]

First, comparing this situation to gay marriage is a very bad example. There are many reasons why gay marriage is considered wrong in many parts of the world, and yes it does affect other people.

Second, anyone here who believes rewind should be part of GT, please state simply in as few words as possible why. Many have given reasons why not, try giving me a reason why it should be included.

'many other games have it' is not a reason.

 

[Dravonic]

Double Standard. To say rewind would make a game arcade, but leaving out tire deformation will not is crazy. You are adamant in announcing that a simulator cannot be a training tool whatsoever. Unless GT stops being a driving sim and becomes an attempt to replicate driving a car and only driving a car with nothing else in the game, adding rewind to GT in no way reduces the realism (And yes there is a huge difference here). On the other hand, leaving out tire deformation certainly does reduce realism. With rewind in the game, and perfect physics, you could imitate any car on any track, no debate. No tire deformation, no rewind, but all other physics perfect and the game is less realistic than the rewind version. There's no way around it. At worst, rewind would make GT a limited simulation by your definitions.

You're right saying you can't rewind in a race, but that's taken care of in GT because rewind can't be used when more than one person is playing. When it's someone by himself, it's free game. If he wants to race, he won't use rewind. If he's practicing, he can use rewind if he wants. If he's playing GT as a game and not a sim, he's welcome too (just like everyone who plays only on stnd physics, an option to void the simulation as you say, as would being able to turn damage off/not have damage, and many other things. All of this makes that statement of your I bolded void because PD has added plenty to go against simulation. By the way standard physics and invincible cars don't exist, making GT an arcade game by your underlined statement).

Your bold underline statement hangs with no support. You simply state it and give no reasons why. If some track section mode is added, put rewind in it and make the section mode even better. You'll get whatever it is you claim the section mode provides, and then get infinitely more control over your experimentation with driving thanks to rewind. Section mode won't replace rewind, but it can compliment it.

These attacks on rewind only stem from the lack of familiarity with the feature and/or the fact that GT extremists associate it with Forza, which is of course the source of all the world's evil. That's why your logic is flawed.

I'll quote myself here:

I advise you to learn how to read and interpret before trying to answer.

And I will tell you why:

"You are adamant in announcing that a simulator cannot be a training tool whatsoever."

Are you crazy? Never I said that a simulator cannot be a training tool. Hell one of the reasons of having a simulator is using it as a learning tool. So no, you must have misunderstood something.

The line you underlined makes no much sense on it's own. See how I told you before what a limited simulation was? In that line I was telling you what a non-simulation was. Read the whole paragraph again.

Also, your whole post seems to focus on how puzzled you are by me saying things that conflict with how real a simulation is. Guess what. I'm not talking about how real a simulation is. I'm talking about what is a simulation and what is not a simulation.

I could go on and on about your shortcomings on reading comprehension but I'm not gonna waste my time here trying to teach you how to comprehend.

I find it funny that you're trying to prove me worng but you can't even understand me in the first place.

Also, implying that I don't want rewind in GT because it is in Forza is nothing short of absurd. I'm not a kid. I'm past that sort of thing. I don't have any sort of animosity against Forza. Forza has tire deformation and I want tire deformation in GT. Forza has a livery editor and I want a livery editor in GT. It has quite a few other things that I want in GT.

And in case I just can't communicate the right way, what leads you to misunderstand me, I'll leave my apologies here beforehand. In that case I should learn how to communicate before trying to.

 

[Exorcet]

I'll quote myself here:



And I will tell you why:

"You are adamant in announcing that a simulator cannot be a training tool whatsoever."

Are you crazy? Never I said that a simulator cannot be a training tool. Hell one of the reasons of having a simulator is using it as a learning tool. So no, you must have misunderstood something.

Then I must ask why rewind is not realistic. You didn't directly say a sim can't be used as a training tool, but by dismissing rewind as unrealistic in GT, it's certainly implied, intentional or not. Rewind would simply be using the sim as a training tool, so how does it break the simulation? If GT's only purpose was to simulate being in a car and driving, rewind would be unrealistic. However GT simulates driving, racing, and development of driving skills. It's also meant to help improve a driver's skill in the real world using things that may not be available in reality, such as a garage with 20 $10000000 race cars, a race track that doesn't exist, immunity to damage, etc. Rewind fits in with the core of Gran Turismo and doesn't diminish it's simulation aspect because even if rewind were added to the game, GT could be played in exactly the same way.

The line you underlined makes no much sense on it's own. See how I told you before what a limited simulation was? In that line I was telling you what a non-simulation was. Read the whole paragraph again.

And I was saying stand physics and battleship armor cars don't exist, so they fit your definition for a non sim.

"if your simulation has something that doesn't exist in the situation you're simulating (such as no damage, stnd physics) it's not a simulation anymore (GT includes things which don't exist, therefore by reasoning in this quote, it is not a sim)"


Also, your whole post seems to focus on how puzzled you are by me saying things that conflict with how real a simulation is. Guess what. I'm not talking about how real a simulation is. I'm talking about what is a simulation and what is not a simulation.

I'm talking about how your definition of simulation is flawed.

I could go on and on about your shortcomings on reading comprehension but I'm not gonna waste my time here trying to teach you how to comprehend.

That's a quick way out of argument, do what you will though.

And in case I just can't communicate the right way, what leads you to misunderstand me, I'll leave my apologies here beforehand. In that case I should learn how to communicate before trying to.

No need to apologize, I'll go on until there is understanding.

Me

 

[Dravonic]

Please don't do that "I'm in bold" thing. It's a pain in the ass to quote you back.

Then I must ask why rewind is not realistic. You didn't directly say a sim can't be used as a training tool, but by dismissing rewind as unrealistic in GT, it's certainly implied, intentional or not. Rewind would simply be using the sim as a training tool, so how does it break the simulation? If GT's only purpose was to simulate being in a car and driving, rewind would be unrealistic. However GT simulates driving, racing, and development of driving skills. It's also meant to help improve a driver's skill in the real world using things that may not be available in reality, such as a garage with 20 $10000000 race cars, a race track that doesn't exist, immunity to damage, etc. Rewind fits in with the core of Gran Turismo and doesn't diminish it's simulation aspect because even if rewind were added to the game, GT could be played in exactly the same way.

I must tell you to go look at the definition of "realistic" in a dictionary. Rewinding is not at all "realistic". Can you rewind in real life? Because you must be able to rewind in real life for it to be realistic. That's what realism is about.

It breaks the simulation because a simulation is based on what you're trying to simulate. If you put in something that has nothing to do with the thing you're trying to simulate, you break your simulation. It's that simple. GT is simulating real life driving. Is rewind in real life? No. So with rewind, you will have a simulator with a button to break the simulation. You will have a simulator if you want a simulator. If you don't want a simulator, you push the button. So essentially GT would be arcade with the option of being used as a simulator.

As you said, rewind doesn't interfere with how realistic the driving physics are and you are right. However, I'm not telling you it interferes with the driving physics realism. I'm telling you it interferes with GT being a simulator altogether.

And I was saying stand physics and battleship armor cars don't exist, so they fit your definition for a non sim.

What did I tell you? "Read the whole paragraph again". Did you? Apparently not. Standard physics and the lack of damage fit with limited simulation. As in "if your simulation doesn't have damage, or tire deformation, etc, it's a limited simulation. However, it's still a simulation."

I'm talking about how your definition of simulation is flawed.

And I'm saying you need to understand the definition of simulation before trying to discredit what I'm saying. It's not "my definition". The definition is already there, I'm not making it up.

That's a quick way out of argument, do what you will though.

Can you blame me? How can I discuss something with someone who can't understand me?

Notice how I'm telling you the same thing again. I can't help you if you can't understand.

 

[Exorcet]

Please don't do that "I'm in bold" thing. It's a pain in the ass to quote you back.

Sorry, I did it for the sake of quickness.

I must tell you to go look at the definition of "realistic" in a dictionary. Rewinding is not at all "realistic". Can you rewind in real life? Because you must be able to rewind in real life for it to be realistic. That's what realism is about.

It breaks the simulation because a simulation is based on what you're trying to simulate. If you put in something that has nothing to do with the thing you're trying to simulate, you break your simulation. It's that simple. GT is simulating real life driving. Is rewind in real life? No. So with rewind, you will have a simulator with a button to break the simulation. You will have a simulator if you want a simulator. If you don't want a simulator, you push the button. So essentially GT would be arcade with the option of being used as a simulator.

Any driver can use a sim in real life. Any sim can have rewind. Rewind is realistic.

A bit more in depth, using rewind in GT would imply that the "virtual you" is not participating in a virtual race. Virtual you would be participating in a virtual virtual race. In other words in the virtual, simulated world of Gran Turismo, your virtual self is merely using a [virtual] sim, as you are using a real sim in real life. Realism is totally maintained. I think people may be having trouble understanding that, not that it needs to be understood to accept rewind.

And by your very words:

"Can you [crash with no damage/break the laws of physics/other things in GT] in real life? Because you must be able to [crash with no damage/break the laws of physics/other things in GT] in real life for it to be realistic. That's what realism is about."

GT is not a sim according to you. Now, your words may simply not reflect what you want to say. That's fine, change them as much as you need to. But as of now, you don't think GT is a sim, so you're anti rewind argument doesn't amount to much.

As you said, rewind doesn't interfere with how realistic the driving physics are and you are right. However, I'm not telling you it interferes with the driving physics realism. I'm telling you interferes with GT being a simulator altogether.

See above

What did I tell you? "Read the whole paragraph again". Did you? Apparently not. Standard physics and the lack of damage fit with limited simulation. As in "if your simulation doesn't have damage, or tire deformation, etc, it's a limited simulation. However, it's still a simulation."

That's a double standard. Limited Sim and non sim are arbitrary definitions chosen by you in this case. It's nothing more than your opinion. If you hold to your statement that non sims cannot include things that do not exist, GT is a non sim because it includes things that do not exist.

And I'm saying you need to understand the definition of simulation before trying to discredit what I'm saying. It's not "my definition". The definition is already there, I'm not making it up.

For a sim perhaps, but not limited sim vs non sim, there is no solid definition in place.

simulation

Something which simulates a system or environment in order to predict actual behaviour.

---------------------

to simulate

To model, replicate, duplicate the behavior, appearance or properties of
We will use a smoke machine to simulate the fog you will actually encounter.

Rewind does not prevent GT from doing the above. Were it forced it would violate simulation, but rewind would not be forced.

Can you blame me? How can I discuss something with someone who can't understand me?
Notice how I'm telling you the same thing again. I can't help you if you can't understand.

I could say the same. But I prefer not to get bogged down in useless side tracks and the tossing of insults (not saying that you are tossing insults, I leave a lot of leeway in interpreting people across the internet). But if that's how you do things I don't mind. I'll just keep going, perhaps looking blissfully ignorant or stubborn or idiotic in your eyes, but it's not something I've ever cared about in the past.

 

[Dravonic]

Any driver can use a sim in real life. Any sim can have rewind. Rewind is realistic.

A bit more in depth, using rewind in GT would imply that the "virtual you" is not participating in a virtual race. Virtual you would be participating in a virtual virtual race. In other words in the virtual, simulated world of Gran Turismo, your virtual self is merely using a [virtual] sim, as you are using a real sim in real life. Realism is totally maintained. I think people may be having trouble understanding that, not that it needs to be understood to accept rewind.

You're going too far with that virtual virtual world. If you want to do that, any sim can have anything. Flying cars, power ups, what have you. Anything is allowed. I don't think we should be headed that way.

And by your very words:

"Can you [crash with no damage/break the laws of physics/other things in GT] in real life? Because you must be able to [crash with no damage/break the laws of physics/other things in GT] in real life for it to be realistic. That's what realism is about."

GT is not a sim according to you. Now, your words may simply not reflect what you want to say. That's fine, change them as much as you need to. But as of now, you don't think GT is a sim, so you're anti rewind argument doesn't amount to much.

That's a double standard. Limited Sim and non sim are arbitrary definitions chosen by you in this case. It's nothing more than your opinion. If you hold to your statement that non sims cannot include things that do not exist, GT is a non sim because it includes things that do not exist.

For a sim perhaps, but not limited sim vs non sim, there is no solid definition in place.

If you want to go in depth, all simulations are limited. Simulations can only be limited. A computer can only replicate partially what happens in the real world. No matter how powerful it may be. Even if a computer one day is able to simulate every single atom and its subatomic particles, it still would need to replicate infinitely small time steps. There are infinite steps to reproduce between 0 and 1 seconds, what requires infinite processing power, what is impossible.

Limitation, approximation, is something intrinsic of a simulation and part of it's definition. If not, simulating would not be possible. Therefore, a simulation must be valid even if limited. Using your own example: "We will use a smoke machine to simulate the fog you will actually encounter". A fog machine replicates "the fog you will actually encounter" exactly? No, but it's a close representation of it. It's a believable representation of it. It serves the purpose even though it's limited. Therefore, if a simulation lacks something, it's still a simulation. That's why it can lack damage and have a more simplistic physics but still be a simulation.

However, if a simulation adds something that has nothing to do with what it is simulating it can't be a simulation anymore. Let's say we add a flying car to the smoke of that fog machine. Is it a valid simulation now? It could be, but see below.

simulation

Something which simulates a system or environment in order to predict actual behaviour.

---------------------

to simulate

To model, replicate, duplicate the behavior, appearance or properties of
We will use a smoke machine to simulate the fog you will actually encounter.

Rewind does not prevent GT from doing the above. Were it forced it would violate simulation, but rewind would not be forced.

I don't like those sorts of stupid exaggerated comparisons but:

Following your logic, I tell you GT should have power ups. You know, machine guns, bananas, red shells, all of it. You can turn it off in the options, so it's not forced. It doesn't violate the simulation.

Would be a stupid feature, wouldn't it? Why? What the hell power ups have to do with real driving? What the hell rewind has to do with real driving? What the hell a flying car is doing in a fog simulation?

I could say the same. But I prefer not to get bogged down in useless side tracks and the tossing of insults (not saying that you are tossing insults, I leave a lot of leeway in interpreting people across the internet). But if that's how you do things I don't mind. I'll just keep going, perhaps looking blissfully ignorant or stubborn or idiotic in your eyes, but it's not something I've ever cared about in the past.

I stand by my point. You're not only misunderstanding me, you're also misunderstanding Gran Turismo. Gran Turismo's goal is to deliver a real driving simulator. If it has nothing to do with real driving, it should not be in the simulator. Power ups, rewind or flying cars alike. They are so out of context, that you just can't call the game a simulator anymore if it includes any of those things. I doesn't represent what you would expect of a driving simulator. Therefore it's not a simulator anymore.

I can picture a lot of people going "What the hell? Why can I rewind the race? What is has to do with real driving?" if it is included in the game, can't you?

 

[Zathra5_]

This is getting silly. Dravonic go back and read my posts to find out why having rewind is not anti-sim. Simply put, you say that rewind can be a tool to improve, is that not the purpose of a sim?

 

[Dravonic]

This is getting silly. Dravonic go back and read my posts to find out why having rewind is not anti-sim. Simply put, you say that rewind can be a tool to improve, is that not the purpose of a sim?

I have nothing against it in practices as I said. It does help people to learn, and learning is a big aspect of simulation. However, you can't allow people to rewind in races and still call the game a simulator. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Lain]

Gran Turismo is a racing simulator, not a flow-of-time simulator.

If they give us the tool to rewind time, how does that make the driving physics any less sim-like?

 

[McLaren]

Gran Turismo is a racing simulator, not a flow-of-time simulator.

If they give us the tool to rewind time, how does that make the driving physics any less sim-like?

That's my question. Rewind doesn't suddenly make the cars perform any different, so how exactly is the game no longer a sim when the physics are the same with or without rewind?

 

[Dravonic]

Gran Turismo is a racing simulator, not a flow-of-time simulator.

If they give us the tool to rewind time, how does that make the driving physics any less sim-like?

That's my question. Rewind doesn't suddenly make the cars perform any different, so how exactly is the game no longer a sim when the physics are the same with or without rewind?

While the physics would remain the same, and the game could still be used as simulator, it won't necessarily be a simulator anymore.

I'm focusing on what simulation means and what it is. But perhaps I'm being too philosophical here. Still, I do think I envision the game the same way Yamauchi does. He did say he invented Gran Turismo because he wanted to give people a real driving experience, something no other game did at the time.

What place rewind has in a game which goal is to deliver a real experience?

 

[Devedander]

Then can you please care to explain to me how is my logic flawed?

I'll try to put it as simple as it can be:

What kind of game is GT?
A real driving simulator.

That's what it's labled, but if you look at "real" driving simulators (as in simulators specifically for advanced driving situations ie police simulators, emergency simulators - ie simulators that AREN'T games), you will see a huge gap.

GT is a GAME with simmish aspects.

Is rewind part of real driving?
No.

No, but it is part of real driving simulators - see above.
Also up until now, are invincible cars in real driving? No, but up until GT5 that's what GT has had, yet at the same time bore the lable "real driving simulator". What about a color changing line on the ground? Also not part of real driving. What about immediately being able to restart a race mid way, also not part of real driving.
Should it be left out of the simulation then?
Not necessarily. It's proven to be a handy learning tool and could be used as such.

Why?
Because then the game would not be a real driving simulator anymore.

See above. The REAL simulators, do indeed usually have a rewind (maybe not with the fancy graphics, but the ability to jump back in time). GT is not a REAL driving simulator, it is a game that is labled the REAL driving simulator.

You can argue whatever you want, you just can't change the fact that you can't add rewind to the game without changing what it is.

You can't add damage without changing what it is. You can't change the physics engine without changing what it is. The addition of Bspec changed what GT was when it was added.

With rewind, you would have a simulator with the option to void the simulation. If you want to be able to void the simulation, why do you want to simulate it in the first place?

Becuase it's a learnign tool and makes the GAME more accessible. One reason would be a marketing viewpoint (ie more accessible means open to more sales) and from a game players point of view anything that might help poor drivers become better is a plus, especially considering online will put you directly in contact with those drivers.

Bspec gives you the option to skip the driving simulation.

And rewind doens't let you skip the driving simulation, it just lets you retry the driving over and over easily and conveniently

What place rewind has in a game which goal is to deliver a real experience?

In a GAME rewind has the place of:

Making the game more accessible.

Being an educational tool and helping people learn to perform better.

Improving sales.

 

[Lain]

While the physics would remain the same, and the game could still be used as simulator, it won't necessarily be a simulator anymore.

I don't know how to respond to this, other than suggesting that you take a deep breath and reread what you wrote here.

Particularly think about the part where you say that with rewind, "the game could still be used as a simulator", which is brilliant. Couldn't have made a better argument in favor of rewind myself. Then go on to consider carefully the silly line where you say "it won't necessarily be a simulator anymore".

 

[Dravonic]

I don't know how to respond to this, other than suggesting that you take a deep breath and reread what you wrote here.

Particularly think about the part where you say that with rewind, "the game could still be used as a simulator", which is brilliant. Couldn't have made a better argument in favor of rewind myself. Then go on to consider carefully the silly line where you say "it won't necessarily be a simulator anymore".

I did. I really did. The only conclusion I got was that somehow I can't get people to understand what I mean... It is a simulator if you don't push that button. If you do, it's not simulating real driving anymore. That's why "it's not necessarily a simulator" if it has rewind.

Becuase it's a learnign tool and makes the GAME more accessible. One reason would be a marketing viewpoint (ie more accessible means open to more sales) and from a game players point of view anything that might help poor drivers become better is a plus, especially considering online will put you directly in contact with those drivers.

Bspec gives you the option to skip the driving simulation.

And rewind doens't let you skip the driving simulation, it just lets you retry the driving over and over easily and conveniently

In a GAME rewind has the place of:

Making the game more accessible.

Being an educational tool and helping people learn to perform better.

Improving sales.

It's a game and has limitations and characteristics all games have as you pointed out.

Still, it's not just a regular game. That's not what Kazunori was after and it's not what he is after now. Most of it is still representative of real life. An example is not being able to save in the middle of the races. Another is not being able to tune your car during races. Another is not using unrealistic assists like auto-braking. Another is not having in game telemetry.

All those things are possible in a game. All of them are helpful. GT could have them like other games have. But should it just because its possible? I don't think so. That's not what Kazunori is after. See how instead of in game telemetry, GT4 has a complicated analyzer you can look at at the end of the race. Like in real life.

And rewind does let you skip a very important part of the simulation: dealing with you mistakes.

Actually the only thing that boggles my mind and I can't understand is B-Spec. I don't know if its meant to be what people use it for, or if it's a legitimate attempt to create a race director mode that is misused by some.

I will disregard your sales argument since adding features in the game with the sole purpose of increasing sales is something I just can't agree with. Do you want to make a game to make money, or to share you vision and entertain other people? I just can't agree with the former.

 

[Lain]

I did. I really did. The only conclusion I got was that somehow I can't get people to understand what I mean... It is a simulator if you don't push that button. If you do, it's not simulating real driving anymore. That's why "it's not necessarily a simulator" if it has rewind.

I get that. But using that logic, no GT game is "necessarily a simulator". In GT1-4, if you crash it's not simulating real driving anymore.

Hell, even though there's going to be damage in GT5, crashing at high speeds still invalidates it as a full simulator due to the fact that in most real life cases, the driver would be dead.

 

[Devedander]

Still, it's not just a regular game. That's not what Kazunori was after and it's not what he is after now.

Well, I pointed out the flaws in your logic.

As for what Kaz wants, that is not logic, that is an assumption and regardless Kaz is a person and peoples minds change, I am sure a lot has changed during the production of GT5. I mean if you look in the damage threads a while back, people were saying that damage was not what kaz wanted, it wasn't what the game was about etc etc...

And as I pointed out, want or not, every business is to some point a slave to sales. GT isn't hurting for sales for sure, but there is no such thing as too many sales

 

[alfy13]

Well the theory is they wouldn't make the same mistake over and over, they would make it once, immediately get to try again seeing if a certain change made it better, and if not, try another idea immediately again until it did work. Remember, rewind lets you redo but you have to actually DO it in the end.

It's not like you can do a corner badly, hit the rewind button and then magically be through the corner, rewind just lets you try that corner again, immediately without having to go into a seperate practice mode and find a similar corner or drive another lap to try again or turn around and set yourself up for another pass.

For instance my GF likes racing games, but GT is frustrating for her because one screw up will likely put you out of the race (and if you are a lower skilled player, recovering from a spinout to place is near impossible) and that's not fun just frustrating. Also by the time she has made a whole lap, she doesn't really remember the corner she had the problem on, and why the problem came up and so repeats it as if it were the first time. This is also frustrating for her.

Rewind would let her go off a corner, rewind down the straight and maybe she thinks the ebrake will get her around the corner. She can try that, and when it obviously fails, she rewinds again, maybe if she turns sooner, so she tries that, no go still off into the dirt... rewind, maybe brake earlier, whoa hit the brakes too early and crawled around the corner... but it's progress, one more rewind... finds a good braking spot, hits the corner decently, on her way and the next time around the track she doesn't have to worry about what she tried the last 4 times laps ago and try to come up with a new attack plan inthe heat of the race, she knows what works, hits the corner and holds her position!

That's how rewind would work.

The calculator analogy is a bit flawed... a calcluator would be more akin to bspec, you can watch the race driven correctly, but it doesn't give you any ability to learn about them.

The closest math analogy I can think of would be rewind is like trying to redo a problem right after you go it wrong. While it's still fresh in your mind exactly what you did and why it didn't work so you can easily apply it to your next attempt. Currently with only laps to practice, it's like doing a math problem, finding out you got it wrong, but not being able to try again until tomorrow, meanwhile you have a ton of other math problems to learn and complete in the mean time and so by the time tomorrow gets here, you aren't able to use your previous experience directly towards your next try as it's hazed by all that has happened between the two attempts.

Sorry, I stopped at the point when you referenced GF.
So my question is, why are causual playing a Sim game? Shouldnt they be playing a arcade racing game?

Their is a reason why they have Simulator games, and arcade games. Arcade games are meant to be easy and fun, while Simulator games, are meant to be close to RL, but fun, but with a huge learning curve.

So if your asking PD to cater to causuals, when their game started off as a sim game. Then shouldnt we just ask PD, to start making arcade games instead?

Which is my reason why Rewind wont fix any frustrations that a casual player may get from their mistakes. Maybe they should move on to something that is fitted to their skills, such as Burnout paradise, and all the Need for Speed games. Also which is why casusal games such as Madden sells well to them. Its a easy game.

Now I am not saying that casuals should not play GT game. But they should know that GT series is a sim game, it even says it in the title. That to me is a indicator that , if you cant take the heat, then maybe this game is not meant for you. It doesnt take 5 games to finally find out that this game is hard and learning curve comes with lots of frustrations.. To me, it sounds like you want PD to make a game around causuals, and not around the ppl who made what GT franchise is today.

 

[Dravonic]

I get that. But using that logic, no GT game is "necessarily a simulator". In GT1-4, if you crash it's not simulating real driving anymore.

Hell, even though there's going to be damage in GT5, crashing at high speeds still invalidates it as a full simulator due to the fact that in most real life cases, the driver would be dead.

Yeah. However when crashing it's not simulating the consequences because of a limitation of the game. With rewind the game is letting you bypass it's simulation. Two different things.

Of course the same can be said about damage. If it's in, it must be on at all times or the game would let you bypass it's simulation.

Well it is a complicated subject after all. The thread has 63 pages for a reason lol. I don't agree much with it because I'm all for realism and I think the game is headed more in that way. Rewind would have a important role in the overall realism part of it, and I don't think realism is something that should be tampered with in a game that aims for it.

Still, rewind surely has nothing to do with simulating the real driving. I won't give up on that

Well, I pointed out the flaws in your logic.

As for what Kaz wants, that is not logic, that is an assumption and regardless Kaz is a person and peoples minds change, I am sure a lot has changed during the production of GT5. I mean if you look in the damage threads a while back, people were saying that damage was not what kaz wanted, it wasn't what the game was about etc etc...

And as I pointed out, want or not, every business is to some point a slave to sales. GT isn't hurting for sales for sure, but there is no such thing as too many sales

Indeed. I got what I was asking for lol.

People's minds do change but I think those who thought Kaz did not want damage were blind to the evidences really. Sure, he was always reluctant but he always talked about damage as something to be done in the future. It was gonna happen if he liked it or not.

The only way I believe Kaz will include things like rewind is if he somehow feels pressured to, as happened with damage. I don't think it's the case yet.

 

[Devedander]

THen my question is, why are causual playing a Sim game? Shouldnt they be playing a arcade racing game?

Their is a reason why they have Simulator games, and arcade games. Arcade games are meant to be easy and fun, while Simulator games, are meant to be close to RL, but fun, but with a huge learning curve.

So if your asking PD to cater to causuals, when their game started off as a sim game. Then shouldnt we just ask PD, to start making arcade games instead?

Which is my reason why Rewind wont fix any frustrations that a casual player may get from their mistakes. Maybe they should move on to something that is fitted to their skills, such as Burnout paradise, and all the Need for Speed games. Also which is why casusal games such as Madden sells well to them. Its a easy game.

Now I am not saying that casuals should not play GT game. But they should know that GT series is a sim game, it even says it in the title. That to me is a indicator that , if you cant take the heat, then maybe this game is not meant for you

Well I could ask the opposite question: Why should GT limit itself and make it self inaccessible to lower skilled casual gamers who would like to move up but don't enjoy making it over that first hump? Especially if GT can accomodate them without compromising it's challenging core gameplay by letting you choose to use rewind or not?

We already have license tests which are designed specifically for helping lower skilled players learn advanced techniques... I would say that GT is and has been a game that aims at bringing in casual gamers and helping them improve. License tests and the driving line are both steps which KY has taken to open up the game to casual drivers. Rewind would only be another step in that direction.

As for knowing what you are getting into, who knows. It's quite possible to read simulator but not really comprehend what it means. Or maybe you know what it's about but underestimate the challenge involved and the size of the first hump in learning... there are any number of reasons.

I look at it as: Some race tracks house pro races, however they may also house amature races and even kart and basic racing classes. A driving simulator doesn't have to cater only to advanced drivers.

Indeed. I got what I was asking for lol.

People's minds do change but I think those who thought Kaz did not want damage were blind to the evidences really. Sure, he was always reluctant but he always talked about damage as something to be done in the future. It was gonna happen if he liked it or not.

The only way I believe Kaz will include things like rewind is if he somehow feels pressured to, as happened with damage. I don't think it's the case yet.

I agree that I don't think he feels the pressure to do so yet. I would be very surprised if rewind found it's way into GT5. If it becomes a runaway success in F3 and driving games in general, then indeed maybe it will find it's way into a GT game at some point.

But whether it will doens't alter the merrits it has and whether it would damage or offer beneificial eliments to the game.

And as I said before, license tests and the driving line are both ways in which GT has attempted to be accessible to lower skilled players, I don't think it's a bad thing or at all unreasonable to think we may see that trend continue.

 

[alfy13]

Well I could ask the opposite question: Why should GT limit itself and make it self inaccessible to lower skilled casual gamers who would like to move up but don't enjoy making it over that first hump? Especially if GT can accomodate them without compromising it's challenging core gameplay by letting you choose to use rewind or not?

We already have license tests which are designed specifically for helping lower skilled players learn advanced techniques... I would say that GT is and has been a game that aims at bringing in casual gamers and helping them improve. License tests and the driving line are both steps which KY has taken to open up the game to casual drivers. Rewind would only be another step in that direction.

As for knowing what you are getting into, who knows. It's quite possible to read simulator but not really comprehend what it means. Or maybe you know what it's about but underestimate the challenge involved and the size of the first hump in learning... there are any number of reasons.

I look at it as: Some race tracks house pro races, however they may also house amature races and even kart and basic racing classes. A driving simulator doesn't have to cater only to advanced drivers.

LMAO, yoou are still asking PD to make games around casuals. A casusal will either A. deal with the frustrations, that all who played this game has gotten over the years, Or B. read reviews before buying the game.

Which I still dont see how rewind fixes the learning curve. It only mask the mistakes. If you constantly make mistakes, and rewind without knowing what caused it, how does rewind help fix that issue? I mean, I dont need rewind to tell me, that maybe i taken the turn to fast, and that next time I come to that turn, I'll slow down way before the turn. It doesnt take rewind for me to figure that out.

Also how is rewind going to teach a person how to deal with understeer, oversteer etc? It cant, its something they will have to learn, which also comes with lots of frustations.

So once again, why are we caring if casuals get frustrated over GT again?
I would understand if the title says, Gran Turismo, The Real arcade racer.

 

[Devedander]

LMAO, yoou are still asking PD to make games around casuals. A casusal will either A. deal with the frustrations, that all who play had this game has gotten over the years, Or B. read reviews before buying the game.

Here you are going off and making assumptions... if you go to a gamestop 2 or 3 days after GT5 comes out I bet you will find used copies already... you know why? People who bought it and returned it already because it was frustrating and either they did not read reviews or didn't understand the difficulty from the reviews they did use.

Basically you can't just wrap up casual players with two options. I actually know casual players who don't fit your description at all..

You are asking questions, then discounting the answers based on assumptions you are generalizing as being some kind of rule.

BTW making games around casuals? Did you see KY's recent review and how he states GTPSP was made with being casual friendly in mind? The GT franchise is indeed widening it's audience.

Which I still dont see how rewind fixes the learning curve. It only mask the mistakes. If you constantly make mistakes, and rewind without knowing what caused it, how does rewind help fix that issue? I mean, I dont need rewind to tell me, that maybe i taken the turn to fast, and that next time I come to that turn, I'll slow down way before the turn. It doesnt take rewind for me to figure that out.

Ummm I already explained that to you... it's called trial and error. The same way I learned a lot of things... like how to ride a bike, how to play basketball... there are a lot of things you learn by doing it, then trying again slightly differently.

I explained already that rewind is only ONE tool in the arsenal of learning. You have license tests to explain the basics to you if you don't know them (again, reaching out to casual gamers to help them get better) and then you have practice to get better.

Are you saying that trial and erorr are not legitimate ways to learn things? Becuase I know for a fact trial and error (also known as practice) have worked for me in the past.

I learned how to handle getting sideways and understeer before I had any idea what they were and I didn't read about them or get taught... I just saw what happened, tried to adapt and after a few tries, found what worked.

Please explain how you think rewind works, becuase from the way you talk, it sounds like you think the following will happen:

go off corner - rewind - go off corner the same way - rewind - go off corner the same way - rewind etc etc...

I mean either someone will get better and thus make the corner or they will do nothing different and keep going off the corner over and over.

How did you learn to get better? I am guessing you went through, raced and when you made a mistake you applied some thought to doing it better next time, then tried your new strategy and repeated. Well that's how rewind works.

Also how is rewind going to teach a person how to deal with understeer, oversteer etc? It cant, its something they will have to learn, which also comes with lots of frustations.

The same way you do in real life, the same way you do when practicing hot laps and racing in general... you try it, you screw up, you try to figure out why it happened, adjust and see if you made the right adjustment. Rewind means you don't have to do a whole lap to try a particular thing again.

So once again, why are we caring if casuals get frustrated over GT again?

As I have said before, there are lots of reasons:

1 Don't you want others to enjoy the experience you are enjoying? Why not make it as friendly as possible an experience for them to do so?

2 Sales reasons - casuals far outnumber the hardcore and their money is just as green.

3 Someone who gets frustrated may just give up, but they may also simply give up on learning and find fun where they can. And if you can't win a race, fun may be found in bashing other drivers online. We have all seen people (kids) who would rather not try something than do something hard but don't want to admit they just aren't good so rather than try to get better they just cause trouble to cover up. If we can alleviate some of that online why not.

So you haven't answered: Why should we be excluding casuals and putting up barriers to enjoying this game if we can include them without damaging our own experiences?

 

[Exorcet]

You're going too far with that virtual virtual world. If you want to do that, any sim can have anything. Flying cars, power ups, what have you. Anything is allowed. I don't think we should be headed that way.

You're partially correct. Virtual Virtual world allows anything to happen in a sim, but you would only really add things that would satisfy the consumer/appeal to the game's identity. Rewind can help you learn so it gets in. Nothing's stopping you from putting machine guns on a real car (I guess, though you might find it hard to enter a race) but they wouldn't help you learn to drive, so they'd get axed.

And if guns were added, so long as I could turn them off it would be as if they were never there and I’d have a fine sim.

If you want to go in depth, all simulations are limited. Simulations can only be limited. A computer can only replicate partially what happens in the real world. No matter how powerful it may be. Even if a computer one day is able to simulate every single atom and its subatomic particles, it still would need to replicate infinitely small time steps. There are infinite steps to reproduce between 0 and 1 seconds, what requires infinite processing power, what is impossible.

Limitation, approximation, is something intrinsic of a simulation and part of it's definition. If not, simulating would not be possible. Therefore, a simulation must be valid even if limited. Using your own example: "We will use a smoke machine to simulate the fog you will actually encounter". A fog machine replicates "the fog you will actually encounter" exactly? No, but it's a close representation of it. It's a believable representation of it. It serves the purpose even though it's limited. Therefore, if a simulation lacks something, it's still a simulation. That's why it can lack damage and have a more simplistic physics but still be a simulation.

Very true, sims are only models and not reality, but nothing was stopping damage from being in GT3, 4, and 5P given that it was in GT2 and in comparable games like Forza. It was no hardware limitation unless PS2 and 3 and/or PD's coding is just that bad.

Stnd physics doesn't have an excuse either so long as GT is striving for ultra realisticness that blatantly ignores anything that can't happen in a real car. It's not a limitation, because pro physics is there. It's an option to lower the realisticness of the game to make it easier and nothing more. That's the entire admitted point of stnd physics.

Luckily, stnd physics is optional so it doesn’t void the sim. Damage is in GT5, perhaps optional, so it doesn’t void the sim. Adding these things as options just lets you tailor your sim, how approximate do you want it or need to be at some moment?


By the way, the plank time is the smallest unit of time. About 10^-44 seconds.

However, if a simulation adds something that has nothing to do with what it is simulating it can't be a simulation anymore. Let's say we add a flying car to the smoke of that fog machine. Is it a valid simulation now? It could be, but see below.

Well, if the car has wings and jet engines, it could be realistic. But you're probably talking about it flying by some magic force. This has nothing to do with driving or training or racing so it can't really be justified. Rewind on the other hand isn't meant to be a part of driving, it's for training. A simulation does not have to be completely faithful to reality in every way. In GT, the physics should ideally mimic the physics of real life, after that you're open to do whatever. If you wanted to simulate a race, don't use rewind. If you want to practice, you can use rewind.

Using rewind does not void the sim, it's merely a feature of the game. It's a matter of what is being simulated. If GT was labeled as a racing simulator with the express purpose of only simulating a race as it would be in real life, ditch rewind. The game would be less interested (perhaps not interested) in developing people's skills and more interested in forcing immersion (I used the word "forcing" instead of "creating" because the lack of rewind does not create more immersion/realism, it's up to the player to use rewind or not).

And by your definition (adding = not sim) GT is not a sim because of stnd physics.

I don't like those sorts of stupid exaggerated comparisons but:

Following your logic, I tell you GT should have power ups. You know, machine guns, bananas, red shells, all of it. You can turn it off in the options, so it's not forced. It doesn't violate the simulation.

Would be a stupid feature, wouldn't it? Why? What the hell power ups have to do with real driving? What the hell rewind has to do with real driving? What the hell a flying car is doing in a fog simulation?

Well if I could turn it off, I wouldn't mind. And yes those things (besides rewind) would be stupid. But rewind wouldn't be because it's a training tool. And on top of that, since those crazy things aren't forced, they don't void the simulation. If GT5 turned out to be GT+Mario Kart options, I'd simply turn off the MK options and I'd have a fine sim. Likewise if you want to simulate a race in GT, don't use rewind. If you are just simulating driving, go ahead and use rewind. All rewind is doing is letting you choose where you’re driving. Of course, you claim rewind doesn't happen when driving, and this is true. However that is understood within the game, rewind would not be there to enhance the realism, it would simply be an option to let you control your sim experience. In this way, it is much like restart or a track section select, or something letting you tune your car while driving. Adding something does not necessarily void a sim, it just simply allows the sim to do something other than solely replicate reality. I'm using CAD to design some stuff. When I want to see how it's going to break, the program run a simulation, colors the part according to what deforms the most, greatly exaggerates the deformed shape, and gives me all kinds of readouts of stress and whatever. I wouldn't get that bending a real piece of metal, but it doesn't subtract form the simulation, which in that case was accurate and had stuff added to it from information purposes. Rewind in GT would be added for training purposes. Flying smoke machines wouldn’t really serve any purpose, they’re not like rewind at all.

But again (and actually as you said in the above quote) it's about what makes sense in the game. Power ups don't, people won't benefit from them in terms of increasing driving skill. Rewind can benefit people.

I stand by my point. You're not only misunderstanding me, you're also misunderstanding Gran Turismo. Gran Turismo's goal is to deliver a real driving simulator. If it has nothing to do with real driving, it should not be in the simulator. Power ups, rewind or flying cars alike. They are so out of context, that you just can't call the game a simulator anymore if it includes any of those things. I doesn't represent what you would expect of a driving simulator. Therefore it's not a simulator anymore.

And rewind is not in anyway against the style of a real driving simulator. It doesn't represent what you expect, but it makes plenty of sense to me and a few others. You can't rewind in a real race, fair. But you can't rewind online.

What about offline races? The player is free to do as he pleases. If he's running the 24 hr of LeMans as a practice, let him rewind as much as he wants. But the "Any way to play that does not meet my approval" crowd will have a problem with this. So if rewind were limited to practice (which is not necessary since the proper way to play single player is to do whatever you want no matter how insanely ridiculous) you couldn't complain at all.

And if GT is meant to train people (which it could be at the same time as being a driving simulator) there is no reason to leave out a training tool.

I can picture a lot of people going "What the hell? Why can I rewind the race? What is has to do with real driving?" if it is included in the game, can't you?

Only if they are irrational and don’t understand what a sim is. If they use logic and reason they wouldn’t be bothered because they can simply not use rewind when they feel it would invade on realism, which is only when you are trying to simulate a race. At other times, like training, rewind does not add anything that would lessen the experience. It only gives you the means to tailor the sim to your needs.

 

[Bogie 19th]

Second, anyone here who believes rewind should be part of GT, please state simply in as few words as possible why. Many have given reasons why not, try giving me a reason why it should be included. 'many other games have it' is not a reason.

Read the other 1250 posts in this thread. 💡

 

[Nomino]

That's my question. Rewind doesn't suddenly make the cars perform any different, so how exactly is the game no longer a sim when the physics are the same with or without rewind?

Look up the definition of a simulator and then you'll know why. In real life, does time rewind when drivers mess up so they can try again? No. So, if the game allows that, it's not a simulator, because it's not representing anything in real life.

 

[Bogie 19th]

The game already allows bumper cars, has no damage, allows you to put digital racing lines on the track, allows you to restart the race. Does that mean it is already not simulator?