New Gran Turismo 7 Details: PS4 vs PS5, Driving Physics, GT Cafe, and More Revealed in Kazunori Yamauchi Interview

[Imari]

Ratio

Time doesn't automatically make a game bad unless you're Jim Ryan.

It doesn't if you played it when you first came out, but it absolutely can to a new player. Expectations change over time. The Model T Ford was one of the best cars available for it's time, but if you try and give it to someone to drive now they will find it incredibly frustrating. The car didn't change, but the bar for what constitutes a "good" car did.

This happens with games too. We can recognise that games were good for their time and were influential on the genre or industry as a whole, while still admitting that compared to an average modern game of the same type they don't really hold up as an experience.

This isn't a fault, no product stays the absolute best in it's category forever. Or if they do then it means that no one is doing anything to try and advance things, and that's not exactly great. We want new games to be better than old games, and that means also recognising that actually the old games aren't as good as the new games.

Gran Turismo's problem has been that the new games haven't been head and shoulders above the old games. So you end up with old games that are outdated and new games that are worse than the outdated games. Ugh. Butter me up and call me a **** sandwich.

Ironic, considering that GT4 represents, pretty clearly if we go by modern GT history, the absolute zenith of the series and one that the developers either took from blatantly in order to fortify the next game in the series, or actively model their game after in order to win back fans. So how is it outdated considering those factors?

It's outdated because it's a 2004 take on those ideas. Compare GT4 to something like FM7. Let's ignore the graphical stuff, because that was always going to get better just with more computing power and because while graphics are nice they're not generally what makes a game fun.

FM7 is largely GT4, but improved in almost every way.

Physics are better.
AI is better and more adjustable.
Weather exists in a limited way.
Tuning and upgrades are more extensive.
Customisation of cars and drivers is much more extensive.
Career progression is more structured and with a wider variety of events.
Several types of online modes are added.

GT4 has a few things that are unique to it but they're largely ones that didn't really take off, like dirt/snow racing and B-Spec. Both fine ideas, but I'm not writing home about GT4s implementation of either of them.

Overall, if a new player wants a broad driving sim of this type to play then I'm going to recommend FM7 to them because I think they'll have a better time. If they enjoy it and want to see some of the history and lineage behind the genre I'd absolutely recommend them to play GT4, but afterwards.

By exactly what measure? Only case I can see that being 100% true is in terms of technology, but that by itself doesn't make a game better. There's plenty of cases of a newer game being not as well received, or objectively worse than its predecessors, and the Gran Turismo series 100% falls into that.

I would describe the measure as something along the lines of a combination of "consumer expectations" and "established norms". Think about what your expectations of a good internet browser are these days. Whatever you're using now is probably fine, but any "good" browser from 2004 would probably not be that fun to use in 2021.

GT4 can both be the pinnacle of Gran Turismo and be a bad game by modern standards. Actually, bad is probably overstating it. Let's say it's "meh". It's fine, it's not offensively bad or anything and it's totally playable, but if someone released Bland Torsiono 4 (a carbon copy of GT4) in 2021 I reckon it gets at best middling ratings.

Gameplay kinda stale, AI is garbage, no online, lots to do but not much to engage with, multiple other games that do the same stuff better, pretty good if you're trapped in lockdown and just want a project. 7.5/10.

I think that's fair by 2021 standards. Whereas by 2004 standards the discussion was "is this masterpiece 9/10 or 10/10?", because those are the only options.

Geez. Calm down lol.
Just wait and see for example GTS, just before the servers are taken down, they should release a final patch to be able to play and save the game offline. Pure logic.

Lol. You forget that this is Polyphony, the developer not known for their use of logic in design.

 

[o000o]

GT4 was amazing back in the day. But we're in 2021, it isn't anymore. Life goes on and games evolve, you know.

Then go for the equivalent to GT4 in the console area they're in. Or better yet... GT2 where for a PS1 game (2 discs!) it had 650 cars, 27 tracks, Racing Modification for almost every car, high level PS1 graphics, road race & rally, respectable number of varied events (unlike GT1 with tiny amount of event), progressive Arcade, etc. all in PS1 (to the point of 2 discs). The few thing's that lacking is probably cockpit view, damage, and AI (rubberbanding).

 

[ScottPuss20]

I admit it, GT4 doesn't stack up to the current games when it comes to sounds, physics, weather, graphics and AI but it still holds up because the gameplay and career mode is great. I'm more than aware of the flaws but I don't think PD did enough to address the shortfalls in the following titles, hence why it has lost favour amongst the fans. PD is trying to get these fans back by reviving key features, iconic cars and tracks that established GT as a stalwart. It's a decision which will probably pay off based on the overall feedback and positivity we've seen. A lot of new members and "lurkers" have expressed a desire to return to Gran Turismo, which is a great sign. I don't think you'll find this game in the bargain bin after 2 weeks; it could be the fasting selling GT in history because it's cross-platform. You don't have to stump up the cash for a new console to play the game and it could pay off BIG TIME. All the stars have aligned for GT to rise again. We may be critical of certain features but the basic formula is there. That will be enough for the majority of players who crave a proper GT game.

 

[05XR8]

If PD give me my Tuner Grand Prix, like in GT4, it's game over. Practice/qualifying with 20 cars or more, all tuned from factory special models and off-shoot brands to tuner shops to my own custom cars. Man, listen... PD got my money regardless. If they nail a couple features, I'm good.

 

[Mariangello]

Will be the career varied enough for those who like stock cars only? Will it be still a fun experience?

 

[Nielsen]

Will be the career varied enough for those who like stock cars only? Will it be still a fun experience?

The campaign aspect of GT7 is still under wraps, and for some reason it hasn’t been a significant topic in the recent interviews.

 

[TonyJZX]

with so much being carried over from GT Sport, one can assume it'll have the same league structure as the current GT Leagues.

There's no real impetus to change too much from what is already there.

 

[BigJimmy]

I am crying because you'll never get to see how amazing GT4 was ;_____;

I played 100s and 100s of hours of GT4. It was brilliant. However I was ready to move on when GT5 came out. I joined leagues and started playing online and never looked backed.

Actually the main thing I miss from GT4 is the slide show of photos with rousing music.

 

[05XR8]

PD need to add more endurance races from different cars. Gr. 4 endurance, Multi-class LMP & GTE-GT3, GT3 & GT4, FF Gr.4 cars only Endurance. Mixed grid Super Taikyu style with GT3, GT4, tuned cars and small hatches.

I suspect we’ll see a full Driving School and Missions challenges. Not stopping at Intermediate levels.

 

[adam thompson]

Thank you Jordan and GT planet you truly are the best and cater for us car and racing fans so well thank you. Also I’m hyped for GT7 and I’m so happy it’s coming to PlayStation 4 (Pro) I also hope PS4 version runs well (I trust it will with gt sport being great), I also hope GT7 takes elements from GT1-6. Also hope got a good number of original classic Gran Turismo tracks. Can’t wait for next year.

 

[Quakebass]

Ok, I just read through all of these pages of people being mad about the always online save functionality. It seems like almost everyone has decided they know it will or won’t be one way, when this is literally unprecedented, since PD have only produced one always online GT game, and it hasn’t hit end of life status yet. GT5 only lost access to lobbies (because uhhh duh, no more online), PD-curated online car dealership (because uhhh duh, no more online), and PD curated seasonal events (because, again, uhhh duh, no more online). GT6 was the exact same story, with the exception of the course maker, which for some reason was interconnected with the server and utilized in a mobile app outside the game. Everything minus purchase-exclusive DLC (which is another common trope across almost every game in any genre in the modern era) in 5 & 6 is still fully accessible and functional as it was at release. I still pop in GT5 now and because it’s still a genuinely fun game for me, I’m not pulling this out the ass end of years and years old memories.

It doesn’t seem logical for PD to literally brick a major piece of software that they still continue to sell by leaving GTS without an end-of-services update, and they haven’t done so in any of their previously released online-connected iterations. The reactions to the always-online requirement is confusing to me without any proof of concept to be mad at. PD’s even made their whole latest marketing push all about nostalgia, clearly recognizing the love for their creations of the past, so it just seems odd to go that way and lock down their software.

The only thing that bothers me in GTS with the system is not being able to make use of the livery editor while traveling somewhere I can’t access WiFi, which is maybe once a year if even (grandma is afraid of computers and government using computers to learn her secrets. Don’t ask ), so I do wish there were elements that could be stored in an offline local file system/folder. I’m not sure if the server cap for livery/photo data is related to always online or just an odd/bad design choice so I’m not bringing that up now.

It’s not even like you need the latest and greatest terabit hyper fiber connection to play it, just a bare minimum to allow the server to transfer, check, and verify (probably) a few MBs of data, if even that much. The biggest pain on slower connections is downloading updates, but that’s not a GT-unique thing, in fact that’s the nature of modern gaming now. I don’t think PC games are sold as physical copies anymore. For those concerned about their connection speed I’m also confused how GT7 is a concern when given the concerns aired here gaming outright seems hard to access.

*Edit - and for the record, I will be mad if PD decide to brick GTS and/or any future titles by not providing an end of life update. I just don’t see any reason they would do that.

 

[RacingFan1]

Ironic, considering that GT4 represents, pretty clearly if we go by modern GT history, the absolute zenith of the series and one that the developers either took from blatantly in order to fortify the next game in the series, or actively model their game after in order to win back fans. So how is it outdated considering those factors?

Well, that's your opinion. It's not a fact.
For me it's GT5 because of the online mode, it was a complete revolution back then. GT4 didn't have online mode or lobbies so that automatically makes it massively outdated.

 

[Com Fox]

Well, that's your opinion. It's not a fact.
For me it's GT5 because of the online mode, it was a complete revolution back then. GT4 didn't have online mode or lobbies so that automatically makes it massively outdated.

Unless you mean for the series, I don't see how it was revolutionary as other racing games have come out before and hit it better. I loved playing GT5 for the online back then but that was more because the community I associated with and less the online itself.

 

[o000o]

PD need to add more endurance races from different cars. Gr. 4 endurance, Multi-class LMP & GTE-GT3, GT3 & GT4, FF Gr.4 cars only Endurance. Mixed grid Super Taikyu style with GT3, GT4, tuned cars and small hatches.

I suspect we’ll see a full Driving School and Missions challenges. Not stopping at Intermediate levels.

Endurance Championships too, like full round Super GT with similar number of laps at real life for each round. Formula GT was something like that in earlier GT games.

 

[RacingFan1]

Unless you mean for the series, I don't see how it was revolutionary as other racing games have come out before and hit it better. I loved playing GT5 for the online back then but that was more because the community I associated with and less the online itself.

Yes I meant for the series, and for playstation community in general. It was not the first to have it, but it was arguably the most popular driving game back then, and very accessible, so yeah, it was kind of a revolution, people were used to play alone against the boring CPU, so with that they went crazy, the amount of players and lobbies was insane, I met and knew so many people... I still remember it as if it was yesterday.

 

[ArR29]

At the end of the day, it's still a business. Sony obviously wants PS users to purchase their PS+ subscription, and what game would be perfect for that? Naturally, it's Gran Turismo.

 

[Veinz]

GT4 was amazing back in the day. But we're in 2021, it isn't anymore. Life goes on and games evolve, you know.

Agreed. GT4 was certainly amazing for it’s time but I don’t miss racing against 5 other AIs. I have no desire to go back to it much like I won’t have any desire to play GTS once GT7 is out.

 

[Silver Arrows]

At the end of the day, it's still a business. Sony obviously wants PS users to purchase their PS+ subscription, and what game would be perfect for that? Naturally, it's Gran Turismo.

I can think of many, many other games before GT that would sell PS+ subscriptions.

 

[64bitmodels]

It doesn't if you played it when you first came out, but it absolutely can to a new player. Expectations change over time. The Model T Ford was one of the best cars available for it's time, but if you try and give it to someone to drive now they will find it incredibly frustrating. The car didn't change, but the bar for what constitutes a "good" car did.

This happens with games too. We can recognise that games were good for their time and were influential on the genre or industry as a whole, while still admitting that compared to an average modern game of the same type they don't really hold up as an experience.

This isn't a fault, no product stays the absolute best in it's category forever. Or if they do then it means that no one is doing anything to try and advance things, and that's not exactly great. We want new games to be better than old games, and that means also recognising that actually the old games aren't as good as the new games.

Gran Turismo's problem has been that the new games haven't been head and shoulders above the old games. So you end up with old games that are outdated and new games that are worse than the outdated games. Ugh. Butter me up and call me a **** sandwich.


It's outdated because it's a 2004 take on those ideas. Compare GT4 to something like FM7. Let's ignore the graphical stuff, because that was always going to get better just with more computing power and because while graphics are nice they're not generally what makes a game fun.

FM7 is largely GT4, but improved in almost every way.

Physics are better.
AI is better and more adjustable.
Weather exists in a limited way.
Tuning and upgrades are more extensive.
Customisation of cars and drivers is much more extensive.
Career progression is more structured and with a wider variety of events.
Several types of online modes are added.

GT4 has a few things that are unique to it but they're largely ones that didn't really take off, like dirt/snow racing and B-Spec. Both fine ideas, but I'm not writing home about GT4s implementation of either of them.

Overall, if a new player wants a broad driving sim of this type to play then I'm going to recommend FM7 to them because I think they'll have a better time. If they enjoy it and want to see some of the history and lineage behind the genre I'd absolutely recommend them to play GT4, but afterwards.


I would describe the measure as something along the lines of a combination of "consumer expectations" and "established norms". Think about what your expectations of a good internet browser are these days. Whatever you're using now is probably fine, but any "good" browser from 2004 would probably not be that fun to use in 2021.

GT4 can both be the pinnacle of Gran Turismo and be a bad game by modern standards. Actually, bad is probably overstating it. Let's say it's "meh". It's fine, it's not offensively bad or anything and it's totally playable, but if someone released Bland Torsiono 4 (a carbon copy of GT4) in 2021 I reckon it gets at best middling ratings.

Gameplay kinda stale, AI is garbage, no online, lots to do but not much to engage with, multiple other games that do the same stuff better, pretty good if you're trapped in lockdown and just want a project. 7.5/10.

I think that's fair by 2021 standards. Whereas by 2004 standards the discussion was "is this masterpiece 9/10 or 10/10?", because those are the only options.

Lol. You forget that this is Polyphony, the developer not known for their use of logic in design.

Standards would increase with time if this were 2001 and games were still trying to push the limits of the medium. However i don't think that dumbed down gameplay, microtransactions & day 1 DLC galore, always online games, the death of the singleplayer campaign, the death of unique gaming artstyles (in triple A gaming at least), day one patches, games that desperately wish they could be movies, and a massive focus on graphical prowess and system capabilities over actual gameplay improvements is actually standards increasing with time. I'm pretty sure nearly 99% of dudes on this board would agree that the older games were better, not for gran turismo but for nearly all gaming franchises. Aint nostalgia either since a lot of these older games i never got the chance of playing until 2015 or so. 6th gen i completely skipped over until i got a PS2 earlier this year.

 

[symaski62]

gran turismo 7 "GT auto"

Time to buckle up: the legendary Gran Turismo returns on 4 March, 2022. Get ready to take your pick from a huge selection of Porsche cars, among them the 917 Living Legend – a concept car with a glorious V8 bi-turbo engine, up to 1000 hp, and which pays homage to the original 24 Hours of Le Mans-winning race car. #GT7

 

[Keef]

gran turismo 7 "GT auto"


View attachment 1081492

What exactly is your arrow pointing at? What am I supposed to be seeing? Your post has four completely different thoughts and none of them are finished.

 

[ArR29]

I can think of many, many other games before GT that would sell PS+ subscriptions.

Yeah, but GT has major online feature like Sport mode and 90-100k+ still play that mode every week since 2017.

 

[Veinz]

Yeah, but GT has major online feature like Sport mode and 90-100k+ still play that mode every week since 2017.

That’s really impressive if true.

 

[maikoheart]

Geez. Calm down lol.

??? I am calm? I'm just contributing to this thread because I just find it interesting that there aren't people that play the old games often still to this day.

I'll leave it here, there's just 0 reason a single player game has to save online. No excuses for me, sorry. Online data, sure, you gotta go online whatever, but singleplayer save data should be separate. Who cares what you do in it?

 

[ArR29]

That’s really impressive if true.

Stats | Gran Turismo Sport | kudosprime.com

www.kudosprime.com

It's actually 80-100k. But they pretty much retained their player base.

 

[Imari]

I'm pretty sure nearly 99% of dudes on this board would agree that the older games were better, not for gran turismo but for nearly all gaming franchises.

Yeah, I don't think you'll get a lot of traction on that one. There's been plenty of big name franchises getting ruined in the name of squeezing out every last dollar (bye WoW, don't the the door hit you on the way out!), but games in general are better than they've ever been. Even among big franchises there's a lot of great stuff, it's just that people have this tendency to buy then next iteration of a franchise sight unseen and then if it goes tits up feel (rightly) burnt if it isn't what the advertising shaped it up to be. I know, GT6 stopped me buying Gran Turismo for an entire generation after playing every single one previously, including GTPSP.

You might want to try some PC gaming and get away from the big numbered franchises if you're feeling this burnt out on them. There's some great games out there that absolutely take advantage of what modern hardware can offer, usually made by smaller developers who aren't as restricted by the corporate requirement to milk the player for every brass nickel that you see from ActiBlizz, EA, TakeTwo or Ubisoft. There are great games out there in every genre, they're just often not the same franchises that were great ten or twenty years ago.

And this is why I don't believe standards for games in general have dropped. While franchises might be driven into the ground, the best games out there now are incredibly better than what existed 15 years ago. Yeah, there's some abusive and misleading stuff out there that you rant about, but we're not comparing to that. There are games where that criticism is absolutely fair, but all that does is tell you what the worst games are like.

It tells you nothing about what the best are like, and that's what you're missing. Is GT4 better than the best racing games in 2021? **** no. GT4 was great, but it can't compete with the best modern games that exist. And it shouldn't be able to, it's 15 years old running on hardware that is probably weaker than the phones most of us have in our pockets. Whatever your particular jam is, there will be a game that does it better than GT4.

Unless your jam is specifically "be Gran Turismo 4 exactly", in which case there's no conversation to be had because GT4 is your perfect game.

 

[Silver Arrows]

Standards would increase with time if this were 2001 and games were still trying to push the limits of the medium.

And they do.

However i don't think that dumbed down gameplay

There's always going to be a most common denominator with regards to gameplay concepts presented in AAA products. However, the very existence, and indeed, popularity of games like Dark Souls, which put a premium on learning gameplay mechanics and having a wide and vertical difficulty curve that effectively requires you to die in order to learn how to attack enemies and situations better, would prove that this isn't the case in totality. In fact, if we want to look within our own back yard so to speak, one can very easily see that sim racing games, which often are much more about racecraft and dialing in settings, are more popular then ever, and in my humble opinion has more or less killed the arcade racer in totality because a very loud minority of the market, already flush with sim racing options, wants everything to be realistic so they can get a ROI on their sim racing equipment.

microtransactions & day 1 DLC galore

I'll give you that.

always online games

I'll also give you that, partially. An online game makes sense depending on the situation: good example is Battlefield 2042. DICE eschews a single player campaign to focus on multiplayer since that's what the player base is going to be going for 95% of the time when they first start the game, otherwise, they use the campaign to effectively serve as practice for multiplayer. Likewise, to tie it back to racing games, like I have been saying for ages in this thread, Forza Horizon 4 is effectively always online as well yet it allows people to easily switch in and out of online and offline play modes without having to deal with online saves in the way that GTS and seemingly GT7 has. It's an issue of at least giving people the option to play offline - something GT7 and Polyphony have shown not to provide, even with GT7 making a concerted effort to have a single player campaign of note that wasn't cynically added in after it was cut out for ill-defined reasons of 'focusing on online racing' (IE, making an effective console clone of iRacing)

the death of the singleplayer campaign

Literally this week, as I type this, we have had released a single player game that, aside from a two player online component that is probably easily skipped if one isn't interested in it, is exactly what you described. That game is Deathloop, from a developer, and indeed publisher, that has focused on entirely single player experiences, and has had most of their games succeed and review critically as a result. Ironically enough, Deathloop is also probably the first truly next-gen only experience. Something GT7 could have been, but chose not to do. Forgetting that some of the largest JRPG's released in the past console generation (Persona 5/ Royal, FF7 Remake) are also fully single player.

the death of unique gaming artstyles (in triple A gaming at least)

See above. Deathloop certainly has a unique sense of style, and a good chunk of Persona 5's praise has been in it's focus on style.

day one patches

If you want day one patches to die, you eliminate crunch. Half of the time, day one patches come as a result of devs being worked to the bone and being forced to ship games in unfinished states, and unable to bug fix to the point of being able to ship without having to worry about fixing mass amounts in post. Yet publishers want games out by release date, and delays are often met by the (frankly, stupid) gaming public with hostility and wondering what kind of nefarious actions are being taken, and generally acting with a high degree of cynicism.

games that desperately wish they could be movies

Games have desperately wanted to be movies since Half-Life released in 1999 and showed that it was viable.

and a massive focus on graphical prowess and system capabilities over actual gameplay improvements is actually standards increasing with time.

A focus on graphics has been more or less present since the beginning of the industry, because that is ultimately what gets units out the door. The pissing match between Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo with regards to bits, and said bits ultimately leading to better graphics proves that debate to be true even 30 years ago. The Atari Jaguar flopping hard even with being a 64 bit machine showed how moronic those debates and advertising campaigns were in period. And once again - GT has been the absolute flag bearer in that graphics over everything approach since GT5 released.

I'm pretty sure nearly 99% of dudes on this board would agree that the older games were better, not for gran turismo but for nearly all gaming franchises.

Maybe. But this is a painfully naïve view of the world, because it basically says that innovations, including in some of the topics you brought up, don't exist or do not happen within the AAA gaming space. They do. You just feel the need to throw the baby out with the bath water instead of looking things in a much more nuanced way.

You may be young, but frankly, there's a wealth of good games that are innovative, fun, and different even in the AAA gaming space. One only needs to look outside the narrow street of COD and God of War to see that's the case.

 

[64bitmodels]

games in general are better than they've ever been

Why is it then then that i keep hearing about how games from ****ing 2001 are literal masterpieces that can't be topped when i hardly hear the same for most modern games...?
I know that there are some amazing games in the indie scene, but the main thing is that why should I have to look to the indie scene and japanese companies to get what the **** i want? Especially when western triple a games from over 15+ years ago still absolutely slapped? Indie games don't have the budget to deliver truly mindblowing experiences like western games 2 decades ago did, where you got the best of both worlds.

If you want day one patches to die, you eliminate crunch. Half of the time, day one patches come as a result of devs being worked to the bone and being forced to ship games in unfinished states, and unable to bug fix to the point of being able to ship without having to worry about fixing mass amounts in post. Yet publishers want games out by release date, and delays are often met by the (frankly, stupid) gaming public with hostility and wondering what kind of nefarious actions are being taken, and generally acting with a high degree of cynicism.

I'm not one of the people who advocate for crunch, infact i despise it with all of my ****ing being. It makes games worse, all for the sake of meeting dumb**** deadlines just to increase sales. This is why i review the release date as such an archaic and stupid concept. A game should be done "when it's done" and it shouldn't be determined by some arbitrary dumb**** date on the calendar. The only time a release date should be announced is when the game is essentially 100% done and it should be like a week before release- not 2 months, not 2 years, not 3 years (Looking at you metroid prime 4) not any amount of time longer than 2 weeks. I also think that Cyberpunk essentially ****ed up the perception of delays. Before that garbage heap, delays were looked upon as something good, make the game better so that a dumb day one patch isnt needed. But like, ever since december 2020, people go ****ing rabid whenever a delay is announced & they always point towards ****ing cyberpunk as to why delays are bad.

Games have desperately wanted to be movies since Half-Life released in 1999 and showed that it was viable.

Half life is a GAME, that just so happens to have really cinematic storytelling. I can't say the same for say, the last of us (yes, both the sequel and the original) which is a MOVIE that just so happens to have really generic gameplay. Half life wasn't really filled with slow boring scenes where you walk and the characters talk to each other, it wasn't filled with over 10 hours of cutscenes, it had great gameplay and engaging puzzles. One game inspired the gaming industry in the 2000s to have amazing storytelling while still having memorable and fun gameplay, the other completely ****ed it up in the 2010s by telling everyone to prioritize story and cinematics over actual gameplay. Notice how everyone mentions that TLOU fails at having engaing gameplay, but the story is SOO GOOD GUYS LIKE ITS SO LIFE CHANGING AND AMAZING that they suffer through the mediocre gunplay just to see the next cutscene. It literally failed at being a good ****ing video game.

Literally this week, as I type this, we have had released a single player game that, aside from a two player online component that is probably easily skipped if one isn't interested in it, is exactly what you described.

As opposed to the mid-late 2000s where there was a perfect blend of multiplayer focused games and singleplayer experiences, as opposed to now where multiplayer completely dominates singleplayer and you can hardly find singleplayer focused experiences outside of the indie scene and JRPGS. I like those genres, but why must they be the only safe havens for me to find singleplayer games?

Deathloop certainly has a unique sense of style, and a good chunk of Persona 5's praise has been in it's focus on style.

Deathloop is the exception, not the norm. Same for Persona 5. A lot of games nowadays have defaulted to having overly detailed, highly saturated realism for an artstyle or overly cartoony and generic for an artstyle. What happened to the styilized realism of the 00s? Why don't we see video games like Parappa or vib-ribbon anymore?
One comparison i could make to completely show how much art direction in video games has degraded would be the sands of time remake. Why does everyone in the new game look like they came right out of fortnite? Why does it look so cartoony, oversaturated and generic when the original game had a more serious art direction and a better color pallete? Even the remade environments don't look good since they're all oversaturated and bright. Overly neony for a game set in ****in persia.
We can also look at GTA4 compared to 5 and how that game had a more unique color pallete that resembled the game's promo art, while GTA5 is so overly saturated and garish.

There's always going to be a most common denominator with regards to gameplay concepts presented in AAA products. However, the very existence, and indeed, popularity of games like Dark Souls, which put a premium on learning gameplay mechanics and having a wide and vertical difficulty curve that effectively requires you to die in order to learn how to attack enemies and situations better, would prove that this isn't the case in totality.

I'm glad that dark souls is a thing and exists, and it's even birthed a whole genre & meme from how difficult and complex it is. But just like deathloop, it's the exception and not the norm.
Let me bring up GTA4-5. GTA4 had incredibly realistic car physics that were a huge departure from how the 6th generation games controlled. You had to master how the cars worked and predict how the physics would react to your driving in order to get anywhere and get there efficiently, unlike in GTASA where the cars are more predictable and easy to control. This resulted in a really rewarding and fun driving system that made the game that much more fun, since you do a ****ton of driving in GTA. (it ain't called GTA for no reason afterall lol)
and then here enters GTAV, where all the cars react so predictably and move so normally that it just feels overly unrealistic compared to how damn good 4 controlled. They feel lazily coded and aren't as fun since there's no challenge. There's no reason to slow down and carefully try to calculate your turns when the car just turns so efficiently and predictably. It's so damn boring in comparison to what we got with GTA4. The worst part is that people view this as a ****ing improvement upon GTA4!! How!?!

A focus on graphics has been more or less present since the beginning of the industry, because that is ultimately what gets units out the door. The pissing match between Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo with regards to bits, and said bits ultimately leading to better graphics proves that debate to be true even 30 years ago. The Atari Jaguar flopping hard even with being a 64 bit machine showed how moronic those debates and advertising campaigns were in period. And once again - GT has been the absolute flag bearer in that graphics over everything approach since GT5 released.

Except that nowadays, graphical features that were once considered normal in the 2000s are now overly glorified and made into ****ing selling points. Little details in 2000s games that were unnecessary but immersive and cool, like Prince of Persia's cloth physics (basically, the game has cloth physics where the prince can get mud, dirt, and other gunk on him, which causes the game to change his idle animation and make him wipe it off. Guarantee you this would be announced as a selling point if the game were released today) are now treated as literal selling points. Look how much attention to detail our game has, thats why you should totally buy it!! It doesn't matter if the gameplay is painfully boring or generic, look how raytraced our generic city is!! Look how we spam unnessacary reflections everywhere that hardly compliments the already generic artstyle and tanks the FPS!! Aren't we so cool guys?

 

[ScottPuss20]

Why is it then then that i keep hearing about how games from ****ing 2001 are literal masterpieces that can't be topped when i hardly hear the same for most modern games...?
I know that there are some amazing games in the indie scene, but the main thing is that why should I have to look to the indie scene and japanese companies to get what the **** i want? Especially when western triple a games from over 15+ years ago still absolutely slapped? Indie games don't have the budget to deliver truly mindblowing experiences like western games 2 decades ago did, where you got the best of both worlds.

I'm not one of the people who advocate for crunch, infact i despise it with all of my ing being. It makes games worse, all for the sake of meeting dumb deadlines just to increase sales. This is why i review the release date as such an archaic and stupid concept. A game should be done "when it's done" and it shouldn't be determined by some arbitrary dumb**** date on the calendar. The only time a release date should be announced is when the game is essentially 100% done and it should be like a week before release- not 2 months, not 2 years, not 3 years (Looking at you metroid prime 4) not any amount of time longer than 2 weeks. I also think that Cyberpunk essentially ****ed up the perception of delays. Before that garbage heap, delays were looked upon as something good, make the game better so that a dumb day one patch isnt needed. But like, ever since december 2020, people go ****ing rabid whenever a delay is announced & they always point towards ****ing cyberpunk as to why delays are bad.


Half life is a GAME, that just so happens to have really cinematic storytelling. I can't say the same for say, the last of us (yes, both the sequel and the original) which is a MOVIE that just so happens to have really generic gameplay. Half life wasn't really filled with slow boring scenes where you walk and the characters talk to each other, it wasn't filled with over 10 hours of cutscenes, it had great gameplay and engaging puzzles. One game inspired the gaming industry in the 2000s to have amazing storytelling while still having memorable and fun gameplay, the other completely ****ed it up in the 2010s by telling everyone to prioritize story and cinematics over actual gameplay. Notice how everyone mentions that TLOU fails at having engaing gameplay, but the story is SOO GOOD GUYS LIKE ITS SO LIFE CHANGING AND AMAZING that they suffer through the mediocre gunplay just to see the next cutscene. It literally failed at being a good ****ing video game.

As opposed to the mid-late 2000s where there was a perfect blend of multiplayer focused games and singleplayer experiences, as opposed to now where multiplayer completely dominates singleplayer and you can hardly find singleplayer focused experiences outside of the indie scene and JRPGS. I like those genres, but why must they be the only safe havens for me to find singleplayer games?

Deathloop is the exception, not the norm. Same for Persona 5. A lot of games nowadays have defaulted to having overly detailed, highly saturated realism for an artstyle or overly cartoony and generic for an artstyle. What happened to the styilized realism of the 00s? Why don't we see video games like Parappa or vib-ribbon anymore?
One comparison i could make to completely show how much art direction in video games has degraded would be the sands of time remake. Why does everyone in the new game look like they came right out of fortnite? Why does it look so cartoony, oversaturated and generic when the original game had a more serious art direction and a better color pallete? Even the remade environments don't look good since they're all oversaturated and bright. Overly neony for a game set in ****in persia.
We can also look at GTA4 compared to 5 and how that game had a more unique color pallete that resembled the game's promo art, while GTA5 is so overly saturated and garish.


I'm glad that dark souls is a thing and exists, and it's even birthed a whole genre & meme from how difficult and complex it is. But just like deathloop, it's the exception and not the norm.
Let me bring up GTA4-5. GTA4 had incredibly realistic car physics that were a huge departure from how the 6th generation games controlled. You had to master how the cars worked and predict how the physics would react to your driving in order to get anywhere and get there efficiently, unlike in GTASA where the cars are more predictable and easy to control. This resulted in a really rewarding and fun driving system that made the game that much more fun, since you do a ****ton of driving in GTA. (it ain't called GTA for no reason afterall lol)
and then here enters GTAV, where all the cars react so predictably and move so normally that it just feels overly unrealistic compared to how damn good 4 controlled. They feel lazily coded and aren't as fun since there's no challenge. There's no reason to slow down and carefully try to calculate your turns when the car just turns so efficiently and predictably. It's so damn boring in comparison to what we got with GTA4. The worst part is that people view this as a ****ing improvement upon GTA4!! How!?!

Except that nowadays, graphical features that were once considered normal in the 2000s are now overly glorified and made into ****ing selling points. Little details in 2000s games that were unnecessary but immersive and cool, like Prince of Persia's cloth physics (basically, the game has cloth physics where the prince can get mud, dirt, and other gunk on him, which causes the game to change his idle animation and make him wipe it off. Guarantee you this would be announced as a selling point if the game were released today) are now treated as literal selling points. Look how much attention to detail our game has, thats why you should totally buy it!! It doesn't matter if the gameplay is painfully boring or generic, look how raytraced our generic city is!! Look how we spam unnessacary reflections everywhere that hardly compliments the already generic artstyle and tanks the FPS!! Aren't we so cool guys?

Stop swearing bro

 

[Nowax]

Stop swearing bro

I can't believe how he wasn't banned yet.