Poll: Do you believe GT6 will be a great game?

Do you believe GT6 will be a great game.

  • yes

    Votes: 266 70.6%
  • no

    Votes: 111 29.4%

  • Total voters
    377
mr_serious
I voted no, I just don't think PD have it in them to create a decent AI and I really don't care how good any other part of the game is, I already have 1 rather dull hot lapping simulator.

I sincerely hope they prove me wrong though.

At the very least I hope we get an offline event creater or even online if we can add AI.
The AI in GT5's Arcade mode is passable (No pun intended).
It's possible to have some truely great races but it is very much pot luck.
An event creater where we can specify what AI cars to run against would make a huge difference.
 
I understand some people will like it and I was more talking about the tarmac track creation rather than rally courses. I'm just not sure why it's being lauded as a killer feature of the game by some.

I mean for me they don't work online because it's unfair to those that have never driven the course and offline well I refer to my original point, I'd much rather drive a track I know rather than learn a new custom track never to race it again.

Well, that's just it. Rallies can and always have been held on tarmac surfaces as well as on other surfaces - the surface has little to do with the style of competition, in fact (except its variability providing a challenge). Then there's stuff like Mille Miglia etc. There's more to driving cars than what is currently "popular", or even current forms of otherwise "historic" events.

It's perfectly fair if no-one has driven the course, and that's the entire point of the challenge - it requires a different skill set from rote repetition. ;)
You've still got to push to be fast (i.e. win), but you've got to attack in a conservative manner from which you can always bail out if you find you have to. It's pretty good once you get a feel for it (getting in the zone, finding the rhythm), and is really, for me, the essence of driving - sort of free-driving, in the sense of free-running, or free-riding.
Similarly, some of my more memorable mountain bike rides have been on routes I didn't know, having to improvise and read the course ahead - bloody scary, but bloody brilliant!

But I quite like driving (and riding) routes I know very well, too - it's just a different type of challenge (maximising). Then there's concurrent racing, which is easier and safer on "known" circuits, but it's still not the be-all end-all of motoring, regardless of what a supposed majority might think. Opening up that larger world of motoring for lots of people would be a pretty cool thing for a game to do.

You can always, as often happens in real life, run the same course more than once. Everyone is still in the same boat that way. Might be tricky online with people leaving and joining, but would work especially well for short Touge-style races with quick rotation of new courses. The emphasis there would be on having a car and a driving style that adapts well, rather than both being specifically optimised for one track. We could even invent new forms of competition.

Besides that, it's kinda nice to just amble about from time to time. I can imagine it'll be a great way to try out random cars; some cars which may not be that fun to race might come alive in that environment, too, which is wholly in the spirit of Gran Turismo.
 
I understand some people will like it and I was more talking about the tarmac track creation rather than rally courses. I'm just not sure why it's being lauded as a killer feature of the game by some.

I mean for me they don't work online because it's unfair to those that have never driven the course and offline well I refer to my original point, I'd much rather drive a track I know rather than learn a new custom track never to race it again.
Maybe it will be possible to create real life layouts too.

I think they will work online, some of the fun is driving on a new track. In GT it is quite easy to get used to one quite quickly due to game telling you when to brake and can see direction of track layout and if there is a few minute practice session, seems enough time to learn the track. I suppose depends on person. Also custom tracks can be reused again to play but even if you don't get to drive again on track, surely it is fun exploring the track?
 
I really like GT but, to me it won't be a great game without new sounds and A.I.
And unfortunately, I don't belive the new sounds will be included in GT6, they would have already confirmed such important feature if they were really planing to put it into the game.
 
It's a tough time for GT6 to release. Sony and MS both have their big racing franchises releasing at the same time, so of course they're going to be compared! However, graphics aside, GT6 is going to have to beat Forza on features and gameplay, period. Both games will look great (Forza moreso because it's on newer hardware), but since that's not necessarily a "fair" comparison other things will come into play.
 
For the first point: perhaps you wouldn't. Others would though.

If it's not a fair comparison, perhaps there should never be comparisons between any two systems, even from the same generation, then; after all, they're not identical. Of course, that sounds silly.

My point is this; if I walk into a game store come December, and I see a GT6 demo and any other next-gen racing game being demo'd too, I'm going to compare them. PD sticking to PS3 shouldn't give it an automatic pass on being compared to its contemporaries. The new Corolla is still on an ancient platform that doesn't cut it against the newer cars in its class; reviewers aren't judging it to lower standards simply because Toyota didn't want to invest in a new platform.
I'm also sure price will be taken into account too.
 
"Great" is subjective, but I personally think it will be great, because it'll be better than GT5 :P

Both GT6 and GTA:V look to be the height of achievement for the PS3. These two titles alone will help the longevity of the console. I'll keep to PS3 for a year until I've played out GT6 to it's full, and the PS4 comes down in price and GT7 is on the horizon.
 
I'm also sure price will be taken into account too.

GT6 is going to retail in the US for about $60, and FM5 and NFS:R are going to retail in the US for about $60, and Driveclub, well that's a bit messier. Anyway, the point is, you don't look at GT6 and ask yourself "Is this a $60 plus $200 game?"

The console cost is a sunk cost, or perhaps an opportunity cost. It is a necessary item to play a game. But it is not the cost of the game, it is the cost of the console. Why people think a next-gen title needs to be a $4-500+ "game" is dumb, because no game is nor ever will be.

It's like saying you need to buy a can of soup, but you don't have a pot to cook it in, so this can of soup better be $1 plus $25 for a pot's worth of soup. But we all know that a $1 can of soup is never going to be worth $26. The cost of the pot is the opportunity cost for making soup, no one factors that in to the value of the soup. So why do we feel the need to apply that logic to games?

Now, if you're going to buy a new console, at launch, only to ever play only one game, then I guess that argument is valid (though you would be quite silly to do so).
 
GT6 is going to retail in the US for about $60, and FM5 and NFS:R are going to retail in the US for about $60, and Driveclub, well that's a bit messier. Anyway, the point is, you don't look at GT6 and ask yourself "Is this a $60 plus $200 game?"

The console cost is a sunk cost, or perhaps an opportunity cost. It is a necessary item to play a game. But it is not the cost of the game, it is the cost of the console. Why people think a next-gen title needs to be a $4-500+ "game" is dumb, because no game is nor ever will be.

It's like saying you need to buy a can of soup, but you don't have a pot to cook it in, so this can of soup better be $1 plus $25 for a pot's worth of soup. But we all know that a $1 can of soup is never going to be worth $26. The cost of the pot is the opportunity cost for making soup, no one factors that in to the value of the soup. So why do we feel the need to apply that logic to games?

Now, if you're going to buy a new console, at launch, only to ever play only one game, then I guess that argument is valid (though you would be quite silly to do so).
I don't get your logic regarding pots. If you need a specific pot to be able to eat that soup then that will make sense regarding cost of entry being that high.

You will be able to buy a brand new PS3 and GT6 for much less than say a next-gen console and racing game. If you have an internet connection to use, then PS3 online gaming service is free too. Also if one was to compare game boxes to games on next-gen consoles, GT6 will look a very good value proposition compared to competition given the number of features it will have and content.

If I was to say to you why bother getting games on PS4 that also are on PC which I will be able to play games at 4K resolution with better graphics settings and game cost being cheaper, what would you say to me?
 
I don't get your logic regarding pots. If you need a specific pot to be able to eat that soup then that will make sense regarding cost of entry being that high. You will be able to buy a brand new PS3 and GT6 for much less than say a next-gen console and racing game. If you have an internet connection to use, then PS3 online gaming service is free too. Also if one was to compare game boxes to games on next-gen consoles, GT6 will look a very good value proposition compared to competition given the number of features it will have and content. If I was to say to you why bother getting games on PS4 that also are on PC which I will be able to play games at 4K resolution with better graphics settings and game cost being cheaper, what would you say to me?

I would say, Why do you even bother with GT and console gaming? It's pretty silly.
 
If I was to say to you why bother getting games on PS4 that also are on PC which I will be able to play games at 4K resolution with better graphics settings and game cost being cheaper, what would you say to me?

Go for it? I don't understand how this is trying to counter my argument that opportunity costs shouldn't be called part of the cost of an item.
 
Last edited:
I would say, Why do you even bother with GT and console gaming? It's pretty silly.
Console gaming offers a lot especially games like GT which are exclusive to it, you don't really get PC racing games that have anywhere near the development costs and also content and features are lacking.

Go for it.
So you get my point then, you have to take into account costs. Otherwise everyone when they go to shops will be able to buy games for all platforms if they don't have to take into account cost of platform including cost of services and say peripherals to make use of it. It is something people will factor in when they will be looking to buy a game. It is also something a game developer like PDI has taken into account.
 
Last edited:
Console gaming offers a lot especially games like GT which are exclusive to it, you don't really get PC racing games that have anywhere near the development costs and also content and features are lacking.


So you get my point then, you have to take into account costs. Otherwise everyone when they go to shops will be able to buy games for all platforms if they don't have to take into account cost of platform including cost of services and say peripherals to make use of it. It is something people will factor in when they will be looking to buy a game. It is also something a game developer like PDI has taken into account.

But you're not looking at your pc title and saying "Is this a $2000 game to me?" I get that you have to buy the hardware to play the software, what I'm saying is the phrase "Is FM5 a $600 game" is misleading at best. FM5 is a $60 game on a $500 console. Yes, as a consumer, you look at the whole package cost because that's what comes out of your wallet. But to ask any title to be worth the cost of itself PLUS the cost of its supporting hardware is a bit silly.

That's like saying over the course of the 10 years I plan to own my Benz, at $50 of gas per two weeks, I will spend $13,000 on gas, which is the opportunity cost of using the car. So should I think of the purchase price of the car at $10k, or should I think of it as $23k?
But it's (loosely) the same opportunity cost no matter which car I buy. Just like games. Every game on any console has the opportunity cost of the console it plays on. The cost is sunk whether I buy the console now or ten years from now, whether I buy one game or one hundred. People who say "is this game a $600 game" are stretching. By that logic, if I plan to buy two launch titles, does that mean suddenly the games only need to be $300-worth now?
 
Last edited:
But you're not looking at your pc title and saying "Is this a $2000 game to me?" I get that you have to buy the hardware to play the software, what I'm saying is the phrase "Is FM5 a $600 game" is misleading at best.
So if you walk into a game store with demos of games running on PS3, Xbox One and PC of games and compare them at the same level you think it is fair to do so? If for example compare the PS3 version to a $2000 PC running same game, you think it will be fair to compare and not take into account costs of platform at all whether you have platform or not?

Also seen the extra you wrote, how is it the same cost of entry if one is less than half the price new?
 
It's a tough time for GT6 to release. Sony and MS both have their big racing franchises releasing at the same time, so of course they're going to be compared! However, graphics aside, GT6 is going to have to beat Forza on features and gameplay, period. Both games will look great (Forza moreso because it's on newer hardware), but since that's not necessarily a "fair" comparison other things will come into play.
I see not fair to FM5 to be compared to GT6. Side to side will be less featured, with less cars and with less tracks. GT6 on the screen and to the casual mass will still look comparable or better in some departments. There will be no need to buy a new console and new steering wheels, free online playing, etc. And if any of the Forza popular features (engine samples, car customization, AI agressiveness, etc) are improved in GT6 then it would be even harder to put Forza in a favourable position.
 
I voted "no". GT5 killed the love I had for the series. This time I will be much more careful before buying and I will wait until I read the opinions of people in here. However I think GT6 will be a good game, however GT5 has done a lot of damage......

I'd like to be optimistic but realistically the sounds will probably still be off by a mile for most cars, the AI will probably still be poor, and performance may be a step backward given the earlier analysis performed by Digital Foundry. I'm at a loss in trying to understand how PD sets priorities given that issues raised over and over by the community generally do not seem to get addressed to any significant extent prior to initial release.
 
It depends on your definition of "great"... I'm beginning to doubt GT6 will be a "great" GT game... There's inconsistent content, old, reused assets, and issues that aren't being fixed, even thought the've been there since the very first game. (Although, they haven't been as prevalent until now - the hardware is there, and competing developers are capable of not having the issues in their games).

Although, GT6 WILL be better than GT5. GT6 isn't a direct copy of GT5. I felt GT5 was a great game, but not by GT standards. Re-used assets, rushed and unfinished content, and very bland experiences. But, the good parts were enough to call it great, and still compete with Forza, etc. There's still going to be consistency issues, AI and sound won't be perfect, and I'd bet some of he game will feel rushed again, considering the info we've gotten on the track generator. But, we're getting new and improved content. So if GT5 was a good game to you, GT6 will be a great game in your eyes.

I don't think it will necessarily be the best of it's time (or at least DEFINITELY not as good as it COULD have been), but it's worth my money. And I think it'll (at least I hope) worthy of being a good last hurrah for the PS3.
 
GT6 will be the best GT game ever.
A lot of people
incomplete... bad sounds... bad AI...

I can sum my feelings up in just a few sentences.

GT5 is the best Gran Turismo game to date. Why? Online.

GT6 will be even better than GT5. Nuff said. (did I spell 'Nuff' right?)
 
Chrunch Houston
GT6 will be the best GT game ever.

I can sum my feelings up in just a few sentences.

GT5 is the best Gran Turismo game to date. Why? Online.

GT6 will be even better than GT5. Nuff said. (did I spell 'Nuff' right?)

We hope.

I'm wondering about the hackers, though.
 
We hope.

I'm wondering about the hackers, though.

The only real solution is to give them their own, open play space and to have a default option to prevent various exploits in created rooms (which would likely require more server traffic, which will cause problems).

It's not possible to prevent it outright, but you can make it significantly harder with various checks and so on. Allowing "hacking" in some form somewhere on an opt-in basis will remove the motivation for trying very hard to hack at all, for a lot of people.
 
Ofcourse it will be a great game. Every GT series are great. When you get a great thing, you always want that it be greater. But hey - it is for every thing!
 
GT6 will be the best GT game ever.


I can sum my feelings up in just a few sentences.

GT5 is the best Gran Turismo game to date. Why? Online.

GT6 will be even better than GT5. Nuff said. (did I spell 'Nuff' right?)

I don't agree that GT5 is best GT game, GT4 was a best GT game. Why, because it had THE BEST GTmode. GT2 is second best. :)
 
We can only hope with the demo I played that was months ago now the tire physics gave me some hope, and the tracks felt more real.

Really I gave GT5 a 6/10

Removing the leveling and PP crap bumps that to 6.5/10 and then when they merged A and B-spec together again instead of separate that bumped it to 7.2/10

Now seeing the tire physics, and if they can bring back the human element how I remember in GT4 plus longer races, and longer career mode(talking GT3 or GT4 long doesn't matter).

I can at least call it a TRUE GT GAME and give it a 8-9. Fixing the A.I, and online and adding extra features would bump it to 9-10
 
That's fanboyism right there!

Me? No, I don't think it'll be great. GT7 on the PS4 might be though, if they stop fooling around.

I do agree to say great first how about let's get to it being decent and then good etc etc.

Now GT7 we won't know either I said a long time ago the reason GT5 wasn't as great for one GT3 came out during the first year of PS2 lifecycle if I remember correctly.
 
[yes]

Historically, which GT wasn't a good game??? sure GT5 was a disappointment but it definitely wasn't a bad game. if it wasn't a good game it wouldn't have so many players still ~3 years after its release
 
Back