Should "Original" tracks be removed from GT?

[TheCracker]

I'm most miffed at tracks like High Speed Ring, Apricot Hill, and Midfield becuase they seem too arcade-ish. They're 100 feet wide, and don't have any interesting features.

Apricot Hill! - are you kidding? Its the nearest of the 'original' tracks to a 'real' circuit you could hope for.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

Sears point is nowadays effectively known as Infineon Raceway.

The Testcourse is used a great deal by some of us. We set up cars to run for the 300 mph mark at that track, and Talladega would not cut it. I would much rather see something like Nardo instead.

And I must admit that a lot of setup testing are beeing made at both Midfield and Deep Forest, not only by me, but by several others here at GTP, so if these tracks are to be canned, RL tracks of the same dignity (Midfield=highspeed cornering, Deep Forest=a bit bumpy, somewhat technical, both tracks are fairly short) has to be added. Maybe Silverstone and Nürburgring Südschleife or Mt. Panorama (Bathurst)?

please don't take this personally, but what tracks some people might use for vehicle testing, in my opinion, should not be of concern to PD.
I'd love to see the tracks you mention, just for a different reason.

and I have to agree, Midfield, High Speed Ring, Beginner, even Autumn Ring, are way to wide. it's a site ridiculas

 

[Mt. Lynx]

please don't take this personally, but what tracks some people might use for vehicle testing, in my opinion, should not be of concern to PD.
I'd love to see the tracks you mention, just for a different reason.

and I have to agree, Midfield, High Speed Ring, Beginner, even Autumn Ring, are way to wide. it's a site ridiculas

No, no, I was being a bit obscure, I believe. What I meant was that these two tracks in particular are great testvenues, and as such, if replaced, they need something similar.
But I would love an implementation of Silverstone and Bathurst either way!

And being wide?? Look at the newer F1 tracks! Only one Tilke designed track is in GT4 (I think) and that is Fuji 2005, and THAT is wide! A racecircuit has to have some width to it, if you want to overtake properly. I think some of the newer venues in F1 has 20m in width at some places! And I for one would like a few of those tracks in GT5, especially Istanbul.

I do agree on High Speed Ring though...

 

[JohnBM01]

If you're comparing wide tracks, there are two popular narrow ones- Oulton Park and Bathurst. Both tracks have a distinct pure racing appeal to them, and I'd probably want to race Bathurst more.

Everyone ragged on High Speed Ring. I actually (and still do) like this track. Isn't most of the Norisring(?) wide? Just because a track is too wide doesn't mean it's a bad track or an unrealistic one. Tracks have to be distinct in some respect. This track would sort of make a great NASCAR challenge, yet it remains a great track for the ground-pounding American muscle cars. Oh, and not to mention a bona fide track for some GT/Sportscar racing. It is a fairly simple race course that is a wonderful test of speed for any GT gamer.

I think of realism, but I also want some fantasy as well. That's sort of the point of fantasy courses, right? Be as realistic as possible even in a fantasy world. Or let's say that tracks in GT5 have locations to them much like how Forza has locations. For example, the loading screens indicate where the track is. Tokyo, Japan. Nürburg, Germany. Salianas, CA, USA. Braselton, GA, USA... you go from there. And there are even just the country location. Like just seeing what country it's in, like Canada or Australia. That way, we can probably know where the track is located considering the georgraphic attributes of the fantasy track. That would just be to know the exact location of the course had it been a real one. Grand Valley would likely be a Japanese venue, yet a sweet one. I'd probably say Apricot Hill (for some strange reason) is more of a German course to me. Deep Forest is probably a German one as well considering that the German Nationals in GT2 takes place at this track.

Regardless, I'm not at all offended. It can be 100% fantasy courses, 75% fantsy and 25% real, 75% real and 25% fantasy, or even 100% real. We have to race on SOMETHING, right? So live a little, man!

 

[James2097]

[OFFTOPIC]

Are you mad?

Most certainly.

I DO use paragraphs.

I know you use them... BUT, I'd love to see MORE of them. The problem is, you often write a huge block of text featuring loads of points that all kinda run on from each other without a breather! I find it difficult to read quickly and still "get" all the various points you make.

I know this is really off-topic and I apologise if I sounded like I was having a go at you before, its a little frustrating because I really like the CONTENT of your posts, I just can't often get that info off the page into my skull easily! I wasn't referring to any one of your posts, but all of them as a whole.

Meh, do whatever you like! I've had my whinge! I have a feeling that everyone at GTPlanet would benefit in a big way if you take my advice though.

[/OFFTOPIC]

 

[SagarisGTB]

If any single Original track gets removed, im gonna start up the complain train in drive it through GTplanet. Remove them? No, just No. Never. Non. Nie.

The original tracks and fantasy LM cars are nor reality, but they are realistic, just like the game is. They are part of the game, they are GT. Sure, GT is moving forward, but do you need remove the past, no. Lets be idiots. Lets remove these tracks because PD has made us race on them already for years now. What then? After GT7, PD will remove Monaco, Suzuka and the Nurburgring? Because we are tired of being made to race on them?

The original tracks are also better than alot of real world tracks. I personally dont think there is a track out there on this planet that surpasses SSR11. Sure, Id love to race Guia and other nice street courses, but definately not at the expense of SSR11. You may not feel that way, but there are others just like me, who love SSR11. And there are people who love Grand Valley. And people who love Deep Forest. People who love Apricot Hill. Which tracks do you remove then? All of them? That would piss alot of people off.

I havent seen any good points in this thread in favor of removing original circuits. All ive seen is some garbage typed up because some people like some real tracks more than the original GT ones. Sure, Spa, Nurburgring, Bathurst, Imola and Monza are great tracks, but do you think PD will get all those tracks into GT5. Most real world tracks arent that good. Id say Deep Forest and Trial Mountain have larger fanbases than Motegi and Fuji. PD isnt going to make more original circuits, but I doubt theyd get rid of them for good. Autumn ring wasnt in GT3 but it came back. A few may disappear from GT5, but theyll be back. Thats because the original circuits are great and im not gonna see it any other way.

To answer the original question: No!

 

[Wolfe]

Maybe Silverstone and Nürburgring Südschleife or Mt. Panorama (Bathurst)?

I think all three should be featured in GT5, or any game with real-world tracks, for that matter. 👍

I also don't understand why game developers haven't included both the Nordschleife and the Südschleife, with four variants -- the Südschleife by itself, the Nordschleife by itself, a variant that includes the entire circuit, both Nord- and Süd-, and another that only briefly dips down into the Südschleife to make use of the pits, as seen in the 24H of Nürburgring. I've heard that PGR3 does this, but I haven't played it myself.

 

[Tenacious D]

I believe that both Forza 2 and GT5 are going to feature the entire Nurburgring complex. I think that's a no-brainer to include the whole shebang, but we'll see.

As for the fantasy tracks, I said last year that I wanted all the tracks from all the Gran Turismos and more in GT5, and I still demand them, gosh darn it.

 

[Kylehnat]

I also don't understand why game developers haven't included both the Nordschleife and the Südschleife

Probably because the Sudschleife no longer exists, so they'd have to make assumptions about the layout, terrain, and surroundings. And PD would never give us something that is not quite 100% accurate

 

[LeadSlead#2]

If any single Original track gets removed, im gonna start up the complain train in drive it through GTplanet. Remove them? No, just No. Never. Non. Nie.

The original tracks and fantasy LM cars are nor reality, but they are realistic, just like the game is. They are part of the game, they are GT. Sure, GT is moving forward, but do you need remove the past, no. Lets be idiots. Lets remove these tracks because PD has made us race on them already for years now. What then? After GT7, PD will remove Monaco, Suzuka and the Nurburgring? Because we are tired of being made to race on them?

The original tracks are also better than alot of real world tracks. I personally dont think there is a track out there on this planet that surpasses SSR11. Sure, Id love to race Guia and other nice street courses, but definately not at the expense of SSR11. You may not feel that way, but there are others just like me, who love SSR11. And there are people who love Grand Valley. And people who love Deep Forest. People who love Apricot Hill. Which tracks do you remove then? All of them? That would piss alot of people off.

I havent seen any good points in this thread in favor of removing original circuits. All ive seen is some garbage typed up because some people like some real tracks more than the original GT ones. Sure, Spa, Nurburgring, Bathurst, Imola and Monza are great tracks, but do you think PD will get all those tracks into GT5. Most real world tracks arent that good. Id say Deep Forest and Trial Mountain have larger fanbases than Motegi and Fuji. PD isnt going to make more original circuits, but I doubt theyd get rid of them for good. Autumn ring wasnt in GT3 but it came back. A few may disappear from GT5, but theyll be back. Thats because the original circuits are great and im not gonna see it any other way.

To answer the original question: No!

you have to at least agree Nardo would be a fantastic replacement for the "test course", right?

SSR11? amazing. I had forgotten all about that lovely track. I love all the night tracks. but, I get satisfaction out of knowing that I could be driving this course for real, instead of it just being fantasy.
Real-life tracks help blurr the distinction between fantasy and reality.
So let's add some weather,(light rain) and night racing. whoo-haa

 

[Wolfe]

Probably because the Sudschleife no longer exists, so they'd have to make assumptions about the layout, terrain, and surroundings. And PD would never give us something that is not quite 100% accurate

Alright, wise guy -- I was referring to the Grand Prix course.

Although, most of the Sudschleife is still there. It's just being used as public roadways now.

 

[James2097]

Ah, the beauty of the internet. Even though I explained my reasoning in depth, made lots of good points, my posts are simply dismissed as total garbage by Sagaris (without any explanation given as to why I haven't thought my position through), just because he doesn't happen to agree! Yep, you're the boss mate.

I believe there is a strong argument to be made for the deletion of the very old original tracks from the PS1 era.

It isn't as easy to redo them for PS3 as you may think, you don't just bung 'em in that easily. It still takes considerable dev time to remodel them for next gen. Why not do a new track instead that you'll grow to love even more? (real/fantasy/whatever!)

Its basically a give-take compromise regarding new/old content. If you have all the old tracks, you (by default) get less new stuff, maybe only a few new tracks, which wouldn't be very exciting to me.

Why the lack of enthusiasm for new content?

 

[j8mie]

...I havent seen any good points in this thread in favor of removing original circuits. All ive seen is some garbage typed up because some people like some real tracks more than the original GT ones. Sure, Spa, Nurburgring, Bathurst, Imola and Monza are great tracks, but do you think PD will get all those tracks into GT5. Most real world tracks arent that good. Id say Deep Forest and Trial Mountain have larger fanbases than Motegi and Fuji. PD isnt going to make more original circuits, but I doubt theyd get rid of them for good. Autumn ring wasnt in GT3 but it came back. A few may disappear from GT5, but theyll be back. Thats because the original circuits are great and im not gonna see it any other way.

To answer the original question: No!

TBH I've not really seen any good points as to why the original tracks should be kept. All I've seen is some garbage typed up because some people like some original tracks more than the real tracks.

My reasoning for wanting these tracks removed from the GT mode, is to add to the realism of the game. The game claims to be a simulator, but it features make believe tracks, which may have the feel of somewhere real, but they are still made up, and don't really belong in a racing sim. Personnaly I think this is a very good reason for wanting these tracks removed from GT Mode.

 

[Kylehnat]

Alright, wise guy -- I was referring to the Grand Prix course.

Ah. Then I totally agree with you. They should slap the Grand Prix course onto the south end of the Nordschleife; that would be really cool. They've already sort of done it in GT4 (damn you, invisible barriers!). Then we could have the real Nurburgring 24H course. 👍

 

[throttlehappy]

Ah, the beauty of the internet. Even though I explained my reasoning in depth, made lots of good points, my posts are simply dismissed as total garbage by Sagaris (without any explanation given as to why I haven't thought my position through), just because he doesn't happen to agree! Yep, you're the boss mate.

I believe there is a strong argument to be made for the deletion of the very old original tracks from the PS1 era.

It isn't as easy to redo them for PS3 as you may think, you don't just bung 'em in that easily. It still takes considerable dev time to remodel them for next gen. Why not do a new track instead that you'll grow to love even more? (real/fantasy/whatever!)

Its basically a give-take compromise regarding new/old content. If you have all the old tracks, you (by default) get less new stuff, maybe only a few new tracks, which wouldn't be very exciting to me.

Why the lack of enthusiasm for new content?

once again i agree
delete them all
gt is in dire need of new content
its no wonder i enjoy v8 supercars 3 so much
look at all the great tracks
decent ai too

 

[a112]

TBH I've not really seen any good points as to why the original tracks should be kept. All I've seen is some garbage typed up because some people like some original tracks more than the real tracks.

My reasoning for wanting these tracks removed from the GT mode, is to add to the realism of the game. The game claims to be a simulator, but it features make believe tracks, which may have the feel of somewhere real, but they are still made up, and don't really belong in a racing sim. Personnaly I think this is a very good reason for wanting these tracks removed from GT Mode.

Whell if it must be that way,leave the original tracks for arcade mode 👍
Only fair way

 

[SagarisGTB]

Ah, the beauty of the internet. Even though I explained my reasoning in depth, made lots of good points, my posts are simply dismissed as total garbage by Sagaris (without any explanation given as to why I haven't thought my position through), just because he doesn't happen to agree! Yep, you're the boss mate.

I apologize. I guess I got worked up because of the general attention to getting rid of something that is dear to me.

It isn't as easy to redo them for PS3 as you may think, you don't just bung 'em in that easily. It still takes considerable dev time to remodel them for next gen. Why not do a new track instead that you'll grow to love even more? (real/fantasy/whatever!)

Yes, it does take time. But not nearly as much time as visiting a real life circuit and collecting data, finding the bumps, trying to get the physics just right. A fantasy circuit may not be reality, but it is realistic. Which is the exact same situation for the game. Youre not actually driving a real car, so why should everything be exactly like it is in real life, even though it is just a game?

Its basically a give-take compromise regarding new/old content. If you have all the old tracks, you (by default) get less new stuff, maybe only a few new tracks, which wouldn't be very exciting to me.

Why the lack of enthusiasm for new content?

By your take, I assume Laguna Seca should also be removed to make room and time for new circuits? Its been in GT for a while and I dont particularly like it. It would much more exciting to get alot of brand new tilke tracks instead.

My reasoning for wanting these tracks removed from the GT mode, is to add to the realism of the game. The game claims to be a simulator, but it features make believe tracks, which may have the feel of somewhere real, but they are still made up, and don't really belong in a racing sim. Personnaly I think this is a very good reason for wanting these tracks removed from GT Mode.

I dont agree. These tracks are already realistic enough and ad spice and opportunity to something dull. Original tracks dont worry about safety, run off areas and can be very good. The fact that they arent real is irrelevant. As long as the physics, looks etc, are realistic, you dont have to try to force the game to become reality, which is impossible. To make the game "realistic", is very different from trying to make the game "reality". I personally dont see how things that dont exist, but very well could, are not realistic. Just because you havent seen something with your own eyes doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Ive never seen a Bugatti in my lifetime, does that mean it doesnt exist? No, it does exist. Ive never seen Deep Forest Raceway, does it exist? No, but it very well could, now or in the future. As long as it respects the physics that we know on earth, it isnt any different from any real tracks. And the city circuits too. They may not race on Tokyo R246, but they could, they wont, but they could. Reality is our perception of it, afterall.

 

[luftrofl]

If we don't have any "original" tracks then will the rallies be run on the real-life locations? That sort of thing would be quite difficult to reproduce.

 

[samj_13]

How about we add new original tracks and real-life ones? Like Sebring for example. That way everyone is happy.

 

[samj_13]

TBH I've not really seen any good points as to why the original tracks should be kept. All I've seen is some garbage typed up because some people like some original tracks more than the real tracks.

My reasoning for wanting these tracks removed from the GT mode, is to add to the realism of the game. The game claims to be a simulator, but it features make believe tracks, which may have the feel of somewhere real, but they are still made up, and don't really belong in a racing sim. Personnaly I think this is a very good reason for wanting these tracks removed from GT Mode.

If you want it to be so real then, go play TOCA Race Driver 3. Or go drive all of the courses yourself. That's the "real" driving simulator. Minus the simulation part.

 

[fujiwaratofuuuu]

I would like to see a few of the "Classic" GT tracks remain, those that are quite popular with many players, but I do agree that I'd much prefer real life courses.

My favorites courses are Laguna Seca, the Nurburgring, Suzuka, and Tsukuba for testing purposes, and I'd like to see more real courses like Silverstone and Spa, Bathurst, etc.

(And with along with the new courses I'd also like some better force feedback for my DFP. The top PC sims such as GTR, GTLegends, LFS do a much better job and conveying the physics to the wheel; and with the PS3 processing capabilities, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to do this better.)

So, keep some of the classic tracks, and add new road courses and maybe street circuits from real life locations and actually roadways - such as Tokyo R, which exists corner for corner in real life, just not as a racing track.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

If you want it to be so real then, go play TOCA Race Driver 3. Or go drive all of the courses yourself. That's the "real" driving simulator. Minus the simulation part.

that's one narrow-minded way to put it!

By your take, I assume Laguna Seca should also be removed to make room and time for new circuits? Its been in GT for a while and I dont particularly like it. It would much more exciting to get alot of brand new tilke tracks instead.

Not his take at all. that's a real-life circuit, as you know. Nobody in here has stated once that it's simply a search for new content, Again, you probably know this, and jumped around it.
New content + More realistic + Mental Satisfaction + driving your fav course + driving the same course the pros are driving this week.
Many many pros to all real-life tracks.
And like he said, keeping the fake tracks, will inevitably mean less new, real tracks.

Keep in mind, I love many fake tracks, SSR11, SSR5, Clubman 5, Autumn Ring, Grand Valley, El Capitan, etc,etc... But that doesnt mean I'd rather see them than, say, Monza, Sebring, Nardo, Silverstone, Bathurst, etc,etc,...

 

[samj_13]

Someone had to say it

 

[j8mie]

If you want it to be so real then, go play TOCA Race Driver 3. Or go drive all of the courses yourself. That's the "real" driving simulator. Minus the simulation part.

Hold on a tick. This game is meant to be a racing simulator. If PD are serious about this, then they need to make some unpopular decisions about what content is taken out of the GT Mode. If they want to keep Original tracks in Arcade mode, that's fine by me. But they have no place in GT Mode.

 

[GT Pro]

'Driving Simulator' or 'Racing Simulator'...

 

[samj_13]

'Driving Simulator' or 'Racing Simulator'...

decisions, decisions... racing; leave driving to GTA