Secret/Unicorn Cars?

[ScottPuss20]

You're literally allowing for flawed game design if you're okay with a progression system even when it's awfully boring.

I guess that's down to personal opinion

 

[SS308]

Calling a progressive game design 'flawed' is nothing more than a personal opinion.

Anyone's personal opinion does not make it fact.

Many enjoy a progressive game design.
Targets to hit etc.

There is no evidence whatsoever that a progressive game advancing design is 'flawed' nor 'bad'.
Those claiming it is are blinded by what they personally want.
And in no way can claim factually otherwise.

Simple as that.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Calling a progressive game design 'flawed' is nothing more than a personal opinion.

Anyone's personal opinion does not make it fact.

Many enjoy a progressive game design.
Targets to hit etc.

There is no evidence whatsoever that a progressive game advancing design is 'flawed' nor 'bad'.
Those claiming it is are blinded by what they personally want.
And in no way can claim factually otherwise.

Simple as that.

Your point is moot because no one here is advocating for removing progression from the game. If you read the responses more carefully you'll see that it's PD's version of game progression that is described as bad or flawed and the reasons are quite clear. Don't be blinded by what you personally want.

 

[Samus]

Calling a progressive game design 'flawed' is nothing more than a personal opinion.

Anyone's personal opinion does not make it fact.

Many enjoy a progressive game design.
Targets to hit etc.

There is no evidence whatsoever that a progressive game advancing design is 'flawed' nor 'bad'.
Those claiming it is are blinded by what they personally want.
And in no way can claim factually otherwise.

Simple as that.

Except nobody said that. Progressive game design, widely speaking, is fine. It has worked for decades in most genres, and will continue to work for many more to come, I'd imagine. What was said is that a) Some progressive game designs are flawed and badly designed and b) in a game like Gran Turismo with no spoilers or stories they could offer an alternative, route through the game.

As I say personally I would do it like this:

Arcade Mode/Free Mode/Whatever you want to call it - All cars and tracks are available to drive but you cannot tune or modify them, just use the stock cars to try them out, go for a casual drive/race and have some fun. Give players credits for winning that they can use to outright own cars.

Career/Progression/whatever you call it mode - The classic progression based game as you've always known it. Start with peanuts, progress through it to earn everything over time.

Online - Like arcade mode all cars are available to you as a loaner, to start with. You can't do anything with it, but you can jump into any type of race series you want, have some fun, earn a bit of cash and eventually have enough to start buying your own car collection that you can tune and modify. You aren't forced to start with only slow cars or 20 courtesy cars. If you want to jump online and start racing LMPs, you can.

Everyone is happy then, IMO. Those who just want to race the content they paid for can do so, either offline or online as per their preference. Those who want to build a collection of owned cars but don't want to play offline can do so. Those who do want the classic single player progressive game, they have it. Everyone has a way to earn credits and own cars.

 

[glassjaw]

As I say personally I would do it like this:

Arcade Mode/Free Mode/Whatever you want to call it - All cars and tracks are available to drive but you cannot tune or modify them, just use the stock cars to try them out, go for a casual drive/race and have some fun. Give players credits for winning that they can use to outright own cars.

Career/Progression/whatever you call it mode - The classic progression based game as you've always known it. Start with peanuts, progress through it to earn everything over time.

Online - Like arcade mode all cars are available to you as a loaner, to start with. You can't do anything with it, but you can jump into any type of race series you want, have some fun, earn a bit of cash and eventually have enough to start buying your own car collection that you can tune and modify. You aren't forced to start with only slow cars or 20 courtesy cars. If you want to jump online and start racing LMPs, you can.

Everyone is happy then, IMO. Those who just want to race the content they paid for can do so, either offline or online as per their preference. Those who want to build a collection of owned cars but don't want to play offline can do so. Those who do want the classic single player progressive game, they have it. Everyone has a way to earn credits and own cars.

This is fine, and fortunately many games, like Forza for example, already do this. But we've been getting away from the point of the thread with the discussion about progression. Talking strictly about secret cars, I don't think it would be too offensive to most players if you locked, say, 10 cars out of a roster of several hundred to a thousand. And you don't see them in dealerships, and you don't name them but you make it clear they exist, and they could serve as fun, special achievements and status symbols for players to strive for. In retrospect, even I have to admit pre-GT5 the percentage of cars in GT but not viewable in dealerships was staggering and probably wouldn't fly with modern gamers. But 10 or less and I don't think you're bothering anyone, so long as you don't make them cars that the wide majority of people obviously want to drive, like a standard Supra or 458 or something.

 

[SimTourist]

Nah, an artist that worked on a model for 6 months straight wants their work shown off not hidden. The times are different now.

 

[Samus]

This is fine, and fortunately many games, like Forza for example, already do this. But we've been getting away from the point of the thread with the discussion about progression. Talking strictly about secret cars, I don't think it would be too offensive to most players if you locked, say, 10 cars out of a roster of several hundred to a thousand. And you don't see them in dealerships, and you don't name them but you make it clear they exist, and they could serve as fun, special achievements and status symbols for players to strive for. In retrospect, even I have to admit pre-GT5 the percentage of cars in GT but not viewable in dealerships was staggering and probably wouldn't fly with modern gamers. But 10 or less and I don't think you're bothering anyone, so long as you don't make them cars that the wide majority of people obviously want to drive, like a standard Supra or 458 or something.

I would agree on it being ok if it was only a small handful and they weren't key cars. Even hiding away special "PD" tuned/modified versions would work, an exclusive race mod of a car or whatever.

 

[synon]

Except nobody said that. Progressive game design, widely speaking, is fine. It has worked for decades in most genres, and will continue to work for many more to come, I'd imagine. What was said is that a) Some progressive game designs are flawed and badly designed and b) in a game like Gran Turismo with no spoilers or stories they could offer an alternative, route through the game.

But you implied that by saying "Not restricting and telling them to play it your way" because any progression within a game restricts the way it is played.

As others have said, a progressive design can't be said to be 'flawed', since it is subjective.

 

[Samus]

But you implied that by saying "Not restricting and telling them to play it your way" because any progression within a game restricts the way it is played.

As others have said, a progressive design can't be said to be 'flawed', since it is subjective.

His post suggested I or other people were saying that all progressive game designs are bad. They're not, and like I said, it depends entirely on the game genre. With a story driven, single player game you expect to play through it as the developer says so. There isn't really much scope for anything else, unless you want to lose the story telling. With a driving game, you have more freedom, you can give people a lot more choice in how they play it.

As for whether a specific game is flawed or not, of course that is just my opinion, as all video game critiques are. I thought that was obvious.

 

[05XR8]

Funny. Even the elusive Stealth Cars were able to be bought in GT4 and then only exclusive to us that bought the Signature Edition for GT5 and then be available again(Plus Chromeline cars) to the masses for GT6.

VGT could be along the line of secret cars. Brand loyalty or completing the game reveals a car. Achievements could be another way. As mentioned, times are changing. Probably best to provide all content up front.

 

[synon]

His post suggested I or other people were saying that all progressive game designs are bad. They're not, and like I said, it depends entirely on the game genre. With a story driven, single player game you expect to play through it as the developer says so. There isn't really much scope for anything else, unless you want to lose the story telling. With a driving game, you have more freedom, you can give people a lot more choice in how they play it.

True, different genres would have varying levels/types of restrictions, but your premise is that any restrictions are unwarranted.

As for whether a specific game is flawed or not, of course that is just my opinion, as all video game critiques are. I thought that was obvious.

But you can't then apply your argument selectively to something determined by a subjective measure.

 

[Samus]

True, different genres would have varying levels/types of restrictions, but your premise is that any restrictions are unwarranted.

Not it isn't. At least, I didn't mean that. When I said this:

It should always be about options, allowing people to play the game the way they want to.

I was back to specifically talking about GT, although looking back I see that wasn't exactly clear.

But you can't then apply your argument selectively to something determined by a subjective measure.

Not sure what you're saying to be honest, so I'll re-summarize my views:

Traditional, progression based games - fine
Being restricted to only following one progressive path - fine, as long as it fits the genre, generally story telling.
Games in certain genres, like racing/driving, do not need to be so firmly locked in. There are also other genres where developers are being swung more towards an open world, so whilst there are still some restrictions, like certain missions opening up later, you are much more free to play the game how you want.

It's only really strong story driven, linear games that should still strongly force you to play the way the developers want. GT should not be like that, IMO. It doesn't need to be.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Imari]

True, different genres would have varying levels/types of restrictions, but your premise is that any restrictions are unwarranted.

The point of any part of game design is to make it more fun, or a better experience. Games like TLoU are restricted in how you can play through them, because that's what it takes to give the best experience. The player needs to see the story in the order that the designer chooses, or it is vastly less impactful.

It's possible to make a racing game that really needs to be restricted hard in order to give the best experience, but historically the GT series hasn't put that much planning into it's career structure. Especially recently, it's been arbitrary lockouts with XP or stars.

And the thing is, without a story of any sort in place you can have the best of both worlds. See pCARS, you can do the zero to hero thing working your way up the ranks, or you can just jump into whatever racing series strikes your fancy. You choose when you start, and off you go.

There's no real reason why GT can't do the same, especially considering that it's largely what they used to do. Arcade mode used to have all the content avaiable (if "locked" behind fairly trivial race requirements), and GT Mode used to be the full on zero to hero mode. They weren't interdependent, and that was good. They catered to different players.

Modern GTs have made it mostly a necessity to play GT Mode to get the cars you want for Arcade, or Online. That's not good design, these things are aimed at separate groups of players and should be designed as such.

 

[synon]

Not it isn't. At least, I didn't mean that. When I said this:



I was back to specifically talking about GT, although looking back I see that wasn't exactly clear.



Not sure what you're saying to be honest, so I'll re-summarize my views:

Traditional, progression based games - fine
Being restricted to only following one progressive path - fine, as long as it fits the genre, generally story telling.
Games in certain genres, like racing/driving, do not need to be so firmly locked in. There are also other genres where developers are being swung more towards an open world, so whilst there are still some restrictions, like certain missions opening up later, you are much more free to play the game how you want.

It's only really strong story driven, linear games that should still strongly force you to play the way the developers want. GT should not be like that, IMO. It doesn't need to be.

Fair enough, though things like unlockables, levels etc have always been a common element of video game design, you do seem to imply that you think they are inherently flawed.

There's no real reason why GT can't do the same, especially considering that it's largely what they used to do. Arcade mode used to have all the content avaiable (if "locked" behind fairly trivial race requirements), and GT Mode used to be the full on zero to hero mode. They weren't interdependent, and that was good. They catered to different players.

Well, it would diminish the sense of progression.

Modern GTs have made it mostly a necessity to play GT Mode to get the cars you want for Arcade, or Online. That's not good design, these things are aimed at separate groups of players and should be designed as such.

Are they??

 

[Samus]

It wouldn't diminish the sense of progression as long as you weren't given absolutely everything. Ie, every car in your garage, owned, and with no need to acquire any money at all to fully modify/tune them.

People just need the option to progress in a different manner, ie online or in arcade only races of their choosing and start out at any level of performance they want.

I mean it's not directly comparable but it's not that far away from the real world. You can test drive most road cars, even if you can't afford to buy them. You can borrow cars for track days, and that sort of thing. You can hire a Ferrari for the weekend.

In GT you would just be taking it a step further by borrowing rare racing machinery and taking part in serious, sanctioned racing. That isn't possible in reality but then again neither is it possible to just buy these rare racing machines either. I don't know about you but I've not seen the Toyota LMP car at my local dealer for sale.

you do seem to imply that you think they are inherently flawed.

Again, I really don't.

 

[Imari]

Well, it would diminish the sense of progression.

It would diminish the sense of progression in GT Mode if Arcade Mode allowed you relatively easy access to the cars?

The thing is, that implies that the vast majority of the tangible progression in GT Mode is from possessing cars. Admittedly, GT6 does this by design. GT5 wasn't far behind, especially after seasonals essentially removed the XP levelling system.

That doesn't mean that it's particularly good design, or that progression-by-number-of-Pokemon is the only way to do it. A game can be designed to allow collecting, but not have that as the only primary progression mechanic.

In fact, I would say that the standard way to do it is the simple, linear "win this race to progress to the next" sort of thing that you see in games like F1 or Grid:AS. pCARS offers a very flexible progression system that isn't tied to ownership of cars at all.

Then there's games that mess with the concept of ownership. Most of the "serious" sims don't have the concept of buying your car at all, you just get to drive whatever you want. NFS:Shift let you sell a car at any time for exactly what it cost you, so technically you could "own" any car you wanted any time you wanted as long as your lifetime winnings were equal or greater to the price of the car.

If all a game offers in the way of achievement is "getting more cars", then yes, allowing easy access to cars is going to diminish the sense of progression. But I'd argue that if a game's primary method of giving the player a sense of achievement is building a massive garage, then it's not particularly well designed. There's certainly scope for allowing players to build a massive garage, because some people just like that, but it probably shouldn't be your primary mechanic.

This is why there's no reason GT can't do it. There's no reason that GT needs to tie achievement to car count, and so they can have a game based around skills or experiences if they wish. They just have to design actual challenges into the game, because very few people feel a sense of achievement by being handed "victories". Even kids are mostly smart enough to sense when they're being humoured.

Are they??

Look at it this way. There are three major groups:

1. Has fun competing against other humans.
2. Has fun competing against the computer in a series of structured, designed challenges.
3. Has fun competing against the computer or themselves in self-designed or freeform challenges.

These groups are not exclusive, a single person can enjoy one, two or all of these types of play. But each has a distinct focus that is not aided by mixing it in with another mode. That's the reason why Arcade, Online and GT are separate modes. Otherwise you might as well just make one big PLAY mode.

Once you realise that you're doing separate things with each mode, it's a small step to see that the way to make each mode the best it can be is to design it independently. If two modes are linked together, then that forces design choices that may not be optimal for one or both of them.

For example, Arcade mode in GT6 is not the best it can be for self-designed or freeform challenges, because PD linked it to GT mode and therefore the car list had to be restricted in a similar fashion to the GT mode car list.

What's more, by making sure that each mode is separate, you're making sure that players that don't enjoy a certain style of play aren't forced to play it.

It's about allowing your game design to be the best it can be, and that's done by making parts of the game with different goals as independent as possible.

 

[synon]

It would diminish the sense of progression in GT Mode if Arcade Mode allowed you relatively easy access to the cars?

The thing is, that implies that the vast majority of the tangible progression in GT Mode is from possessing cars. Admittedly, GT6 does this by design. GT5 wasn't far behind, especially after seasonals essentially removed the XP levelling system.

That doesn't mean that it's particularly good design, or that progression-by-number-of-Pokemon is the only way to do it. A game can be designed to allow collecting, but not have that as the only primary progression mechanic.

In fact, I would say that the standard way to do it is the simple, linear "win this race to progress to the next" sort of thing that you see in games like F1 or Grid:AS. pCARS offers a very flexible progression system that isn't tied to ownership of cars at all.

Then there's games that mess with the concept of ownership. Most of the "serious" sims don't have the concept of buying your car at all, you just get to drive whatever you want. NFS:Shift let you sell a car at any time for exactly what it cost you, so technically you could "own" any car you wanted any time you wanted as long as your lifetime winnings were equal or greater to the price of the car.

If all a game offers in the way of achievement is "getting more cars", then yes, allowing easy access to cars is going to diminish the sense of progression. But I'd argue that if a game's primary method of giving the player a sense of achievement is building a massive garage, then it's not particularly well designed. There's certainly scope for allowing players to build a massive garage, because some people just like that, but it probably shouldn't be your primary mechanic.

This is why there's no reason GT can't do it. There's no reason that GT needs to tie achievement to car count, and so they can have a game based around skills or experiences if they wish. They just have to design actual challenges into the game, because very few people feel a sense of achievement by being handed "victories". Even kids are mostly smart enough to sense when they're being humoured.

If Gt is going to do the same as Pcars, a more sandbox type of game, then the sense of progression will necessarily be reduced.

Look at it this way. There are three major groups:

1. Has fun competing against other humans.
2. Has fun competing against the computer in a series of structured, designed challenges.
3. Has fun competing against the computer or themselves in self-designed or freeform challenges.

These groups are not exclusive, a single person can enjoy one, two or all of these types of play. But each has a distinct focus that is not aided by mixing it in with another mode. That's the reason why Arcade, Online and GT are separate modes. Otherwise you might as well just make one big PLAY mode.

Aren't the Arcade, Online and GT modes just acting as menu items though, since there are disparate elements within them eg online Seasonals?

Once you realise that you're doing separate things with each mode, it's a small step to see that the way to make each mode the best it can be is to design it independently. If two modes are linked together, then that forces design choices that may not be optimal for one or both of them.

I don't really agree. Look at something like Dark Souls, which blurs the lines between online and offline.

For example, Arcade mode in GT6 is not the best it can be for self-designed or freeform challenges, because PD linked it to GT mode and therefore the car list had to be restricted in a similar fashion to the GT mode car list.

What's more, by making sure that each mode is separate, you're making sure that players that don't enjoy a certain style of play aren't forced to play it.

It's about allowing your game design to be the best it can be, and that's done by making parts of the game with different goals as independent as possible.

Yes, GT's overall design is not the best if you want a sandbox type experience.

 

[Imari]

If Gt is going to do the same as Pcars, a more sandbox type of game, then the sense of progression will necessarily be reduced.

You continue to misunderstand what I'm saying. A game like GT can have both, a GT mode and an Arcade mode. They can be separate and independent.

If they were two separate games, sold separately and on separate discs, would the existence of GT: Arcade Edition detract from the experience of GT: GT Mode Edition?

I don't think so. Likewise, I don't see that they detract from each other if those two games happen to be on the same disc. People play what they want to play. If you want to challenge yourself to progress through the career mode, cool. If you just want to drive, cool.

I think what some people fear is that without being locked into the career mode, they wouldn't actually play it. Which is entirely the point.

Aren't the Arcade, Online and GT modes just acting as menu items though, since there are disparate elements within them eg online Seasonals?

To a certain extent. But that's the modes bleeding into each other again. Seasonals should be GT Mode items. There's nothing "online" about them.

Whatever the actual labels are in game, I think you can understand the concept that I'm expressing with the three independent modes. That's why I took the trouble to spell them out clearly.

I don't really agree. Look at something like Dark Souls, which blurs the lines between online and offline.

Note that you can also turn it off, so that if people want to play without the invasion mechanic they can.

The thing is, for any design choice you have to be able to explain why it makes the game more fun/a better experience/more enjoyable. There's a decent argument to be made for the Dark Souls online stuff, weird as it is.

Locking cars in Arcade mode doesn't make the game better in any way. It doesn't change the experience for GT mode or online players. It simply restricts Arcade mode players, for selfish reasons.

It's pandering to the sort of people that feel bad when cake gets shared with everyone in the room, instead of them being the only person with a slice. It's not that they're getting less cake, there's more than enough for everyone to eat all they want. It's just that they somehow feel enjoyment is a zero sum game, and that if other people are having fun then it must be taking away from theirs.

It's bollocks.

If someone finds that they have more fun just driving cars in Arcade mode than working through GT mode, that isn't reducing progression. That's allowing someone to do something that they find more fun. People who like the progression will still do it, but people who find other things more enjoyable will do those, if they're available.

Yes, GT's overall design is not the best if you want a sandbox type experience.

And yet that's exactly what a significant group of the players say they enjoy, hotlapping and making their own challenges. With a very limited amount of extra work on PD's part they could enable a game mode that caters to that group. Arguably, it's less work because all they have to do is not put stuff into Arcade mode that gets in the way.

And let's be fair, GT's overall design is not the best if you want a progression based experience either. Or an online experience. All the modes are flawed, and it's in part due to this adherence to car collecting being central to the Gran Turismo experience. Something that arguably wasn't in place until at least GT4, and probably GT5 before they really started hammering it.

Car collecting is great, and it is an important part of the Gran Turismo experience, but there are parts of the game where it makes it worse.

Tomato sauce is great, but you don't put it on your ice cream.

 

[TheAnimeDude]

....
Yeah I think secret cars would be okay..but depends..

 

[glassjaw]

Nah, an artist that worked on a model for 6 months straight wants their work shown off not hidden. The times are different now.

With all due respect to 3D modelers — it's a very tough and admirable job, I tried my hand at it and learned that very quickly — it doesn't really matter what they think when it comes to overall game design. Producers, lead designers, creative heads, etc. are the ones that get to determine where those assets go and where a modeler's work fits into the experience.

 

[SimTourist]

With all due respect to 3D modelers — it's a very tough and admirable job, I tried my hand at it and learned that very quickly — it doesn't really matter what they think when it comes to overall game design. Producers, lead designers, creative heads, etc. are the ones that get to determine where those assets go and where a modeler's work fits into the experience.

I think Yamauchi has a great of respect for all of his workers which is why GT5/6 didn't have any secret premiums.

 

[Samus]

I think Yamauchi has a great of respect for all of his workers which is why GT5/6 didn't have any secret premiums.

I think it's just as likely they didn't have any secret cars because of the modern internet driven world where they would be a secret for 10 minutes. Yeah, the internet was around for the first four games but not on the level today, most people back then still found out secrets and cheats from monthly magazines.

 

[ScottPuss20]

I think it's just as likely they didn't have any secret cars because of the modern internet driven world where they would be a secret for 10 minutes. Yeah, the internet was around for the first four games but not on the level today, most people back then still found out secrets and cheats from monthly magazines.

Being shown pics of the hidden car only tells half the story though - driving it yourself is a different prospect entirely.

 

[SVX]

As I say personally I would do it like this:

Arcade Mode/Free Mode/Whatever you want to call it - All cars and tracks are available to drive but you cannot tune or modify them, just use the stock cars to try them out, go for a casual drive/race and have some fun. Give players credits for winning that they can use to outright own cars.

Career/Progression/whatever you call it mode - The classic progression based game as you've always known it. Start with peanuts, progress through it to earn everything over time.

Online - Like arcade mode all cars are available to you as a loaner, to start with. You can't do anything with it, but you can jump into any type of race series you want, have some fun, earn a bit of cash and eventually have enough to start buying your own car collection that you can tune and modify. You aren't forced to start with only slow cars or 20 courtesy cars. If you want to jump online and start racing LMPs, you can.

Everyone is happy then, IMO. Those who just want to race the content they paid for can do so, either offline or online as per their preference. Those who want to build a collection of owned cars but don't want to play offline can do so. Those who do want the classic single player progressive game, they have it. Everyone has a way to earn credits and own cars.

Agree, bar the online car exclusive. I find excitement in showing the car that you've just spent time building up towards that your friend may not have - taking away the aspect of finally saving up for a car and showing it off to your friends loses a lot of the social appeal if you ask me. Sure those cars can't be modified, and the one you've saved up for may, but it all feels flat when said person can just get something faster right then and there.

 

[Grandea GTR]

Going from all cars available BACK to having a limited amount of cars available is something that sounds like it wouldn't work.

 

[Imari]

Agree, bar the online car exclusive. I find excitement in showing the car that you've just spent time building up towards that your friend may not have - taking away the aspect of finally saving up for a car and showing it off to your friends loses a lot of the social appeal if you ask me. Sure those cars can't be modified, and the one you've saved up for may, but it all feels flat when said person can just get something faster right then and there.

I think the best thing to take that place is rare, limited edition or personalised liveries.

If you saved up for a super expensive livery for your car, that's a lot of the same social bragging rights there. Ditto if you spent 20 hours making your own really awesome livery. Or maybe you won one by completing some really difficult in-game challenge.

If all the loaner players get is the car in basic brown, then people who have bought the real car and done something to it look even more special by comparison, IMO.

 

[1241Penguin]

I think the best thing to take that place is rare, limited edition or personalised liveries.

If you saved up for a super expensive livery for your car, that's a lot of the same social bragging rights there. Ditto if you spent 20 hours making your own really awesome livery. Or maybe you won one by completing some really difficult in-game challenge.

I remember back when I was a kid I was showing off my Pennzoil Nismo GT-R livery in Midnight Club LA. Yeah I got kicked for being an ass about it.

 

[INEEDNAWZZZ]

I'd love for this screen to come back:

That screen drove me to do so many of the events, just so I could brag and say "I won that" and use that car as a trophy of sorts. This is what I disliked about GT5 and 6, they didn't feel very video game-y if that makes any sense. The sense of accomplishment of going through all of those events and putting in all that effort was strangely worth it, even if you never actually used the damn thing later in the game. The ones that were in the dealer and you couldn't buy were there to tease you and say "look kid, you want this? Then you need to play the game". The reward cars that weren't in the dealer (whether it was a tuner car or even just a regular model in a special colour, which admittedly is superfluous in this day and age) were also cool, because there was a sense you earned it and they were a 'forbidden fruit' of sorts. Even if it was just a god damn pink Vitz.

This is what modern racing games lack, and I think that sucks. I distinctly remember when the money scumming glitch for GT6 was found out, people defended themselves for doing it by saying "I paid money for this product, it has microtransactions, lol screw pd hurr" as if they were so entitled to have instant access with to every car available. Forza's most recent instalments use this as a basis of their design; they basically chuck money at you from the get go and say "here, have fun". And that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Forza's MO since the 3rd game has basically been 'go do what you want', and designing the game to basically have everything available should you want it.

But even then, they carried a secret car system all the way through to Horizon, in the form of unicorn cars. People were ridiculously hyped over receiving them and most took part in community events solely to get them all. That shows that people are enticed by stuff they can't have easily, and that's why secret cars should make a return. Look at Forza 6's secret Silvia. It's a cool car, no doubt, but its nothing earth shattering, yet people still jumped straight on to get it because it wasn't something that was made necessarily easy to get. I think the best solution would be to make them secret, but then make them purchasable in the dealer once they have been acquired/won/unlocked.

 

[UnkaD]

I'd love for this screen to come back:

because there was a sense you earned it and they were a 'forbidden fruit' of sorts. Even if it was just a god damn pink Vitz.

I drove the crap out of that pink Vitz. Completely forgot about it until now. I think I'll make one in GT6.

 

[glassjaw]

But even then, they carried a secret car system all the way through to Horizon, in the form of unicorn cars. People were ridiculously hyped over receiving them and most took part in community events solely to get them all. That shows that people are enticed by stuff they can't have easily, and that's why secret cars should make a return. Look at Forza 6's secret Silvia. It's a cool car, no doubt, but its nothing earth shattering, yet people still jumped straight on to get it because it wasn't something that was made necessarily easy to get. I think the best solution would be to make them secret, but then make them purchasable in the dealer once they have been acquired/won/unlocked.

Great post. The excitement over unicorns in Horizon and just this past week with the Silvia (even though it's more likely a glitch or mistake in adding the car to the game rather than deliberate) proves that there are people who still want this. I feel as though forums like GTP expose you to a crowd that's more interested in sim racing rather than games — which is fine — but then you're only hearing one side of the argument. There are still gamers out there who like surprises.