Gtplanet just released the 458 video on YouTube. Also since we're whining, I have a roommate with sleep apnea that snores at 75 decibels. Hopefully housing sorts this out
The GT Sport Epic Whining and Crying Thread
- Thread starter ukfan758
- 3,198 comments
- 285,588 views
- 9,295
- Duisburg
Well, no, they didn't do the same thing.
PD stuffed PS2 cars into their PS3 game so they could get away with creating PS4 cars. Turns out those weren't PS4 cars as they're not good enough for their PS4 game. Makes you wonder why they ever thought PS2 cars were good enough for the PS3, doesn't it? And the whole standard car endeavour seems pretty pointless in hindsight, considering that the most important benefit (future proof car models for console generations to come) didn't come true. Unless they actually use the premiums in GT7 (whenever that's going to be released) or add them to GTS post release via patches (due to popular demand, maybe), I'd say the whole future proving thing blew up in their face.
That's on a different level altogether, imho.
- 485
- Croatia
I don't think all the pre-tesselation premium cars will be just thrown away. It looks like PD learned the lesson here and wants to show only the best quality ones. Assuming that GT7 will be a full GT title with more content than Sport, it's likely the rest of the premiums will return. Remember that quote how Kaz wanted to even keep the standards in.
Unless, of course, the tesselation somehow interacts with the not-yet-seen damage model that would prevent the same damage system on all cars I'd say we'll see the rest of the premiums again. Except the few GTHD era models most of them still look amazing, and the quality gap between those and the tesselated super-premiums is certainly tiny compared to premiums and standards on the PS3 games.
- 9,295
- Duisburg
Let's hope so. PD's decision making might have been questionable in the past (in my opinion), but throwing all of the premiums out, that's not questionable. That's insane.
As for GT7 (or whatever they might call it)... Are we certain it's going to even get released on the PS4? Didn't even think of that so far, but we are pretty far into the PS4's life cycle, aren't we?
- 13,907
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Especially when they're so far behind on car count as it is. I mean, they're barely ahead of the indie games at this point.
Wouldn't take much to push it onto PS5. The shortest dev time we've seen recently is three years, and that puts it probably squarely at the end of the PS4 lifecycle. Or at least at the release of PS4 Neo 2: The Upgradening.
- 360
- France
I believe Kaz said somewhere this GT Sport could be called GT7 without problem. That's a great source of worries for the beautifull premium cars...
BRING THEM BACK
BRING THEM BACK
- 9,295
- Duisburg
Considering that car count was their forte, that's... Genuinely disturbing. Then again, their car count was bolstered considerably by assets that date back to GT4. Depending on how one perceives the standard cars and their existence in GT5 and 6, once could say that PD hasn't been that much of a forerunner on that front since GT4. Granted, I'd genuinely prefer a good selection of 150 cars with great customization and such to 500 cars that have basically no features at all, but... Well, I'm not convinced we'll get that, either.
Unless GTS really is just a Prologue of sorts, but that I'm not convinced of. I won't feel inclined to buy a PS4 ever, in that case, so I got that going for me, which is nice. Still... I was hoping to get what GT4 was, just brought up to the current industry standard (I basically had hoped for GT5 to be just that and, following that, GT6, too). Complete with a large of roster of detailed, customizable cars, a fun career and maybe arcade mode, that bridges the balances between being a simulator and a game nicely. It really is ironic that I think that Forza 7 might do a better job of providing me with the spiritual successor to GT4 for the late 2010's than the subsequent releases of Gran Turismo - without the need of a console, to boot
FM6: Apex is hardly more than a glorified demo and it is not without its flaws, but if that demo is anything to go by...
- 789
- QLD
Because it is the only sim that does features like that realistically.
No smart person pays for iRacing monthly, smart people pay either yearly or bi-annually and it works out to less than $50/year especially if you take advantage of reduced iRacing dollars which would bring it down to $37.50/year so it is already cheaper than a Playstation subscription but then that isn't taking into account the various credits iRacing gives you which can be put toward your subscription costs. Worst case scenario for a half intelligent person is just under $50/year.
Yes tracks cost $15 each and that is because of their no compromise policy on accuracy and quality. iRacing use the highest resolution scans and their tracks are a snapshot in time, everything is exactly as it was the day they modelled it. No other sim comes close to their accuracy and it costs more to develop as a result. It is a fair argument to suggest this is overkill and to point out the flaws in iRacings approach to developing cars and tracks but they cost the user more because they cost iRacing more to make and it is as simple as that.
For what it is worth IMO no other sim comes close to iRacing. IMO it looks better, it sounds better, it drives better, the features like dynamic tracks are without comparison, nothing comes close to the racing or driving experience that iRacing provides and it is easily worth every cent I have spent on it. In fact if iRacing came to console it would make me a happy person and I'd happily spend all that money again to play it on console but I'm sure the way iRacing is priced is the biggest barrier to getting a larger membership than it has. That and the fact that most people don't realise how bad they are at driving and can't deal with the reality check that iRacing provides them.
It isn't that, it is the fact that with other sims out there offering incredible realism features it is a joke for PD to offer something featureless. iRacing doesn't have 2 of those 4 features he is requesting and it wasn't the first for any of them. The features it has are better than other sims IMO but there are plenty of sims offering some sort of dynamic track, pitlane limiters and rain and much more.
In my opinion in 2016 what PD has shown us is an arcade game and no longer worthy of being called a sim. I know the term simcade is thrown around a bit but you can't call yourself a sim any more if you are not even trying to do some type of realistic damage or collision model. To call what we have seen a sim is like calling any arcade racer a sim as they are all imitating driving or racing. But I think to fall into the category of simulation in 2016 you need to be trying to simulate racing with modern features that modern hardware is capable of. You must at least be trying to simulate weather or changing track conditions and realistic physics including collisions and consequences. I'm not saying a sim must have every feature out there but they should be trying to simulate as close as they are able racing a car and to me it doesn't seem like GT is trying to do this. It seems like these guys don't know how to do these things and they are milking a name for all it is worth.
Last edited:
- 67
- California
I remember I jumped from Forza 4 to GT 5 after playing GT 1 and 2 on the original PS. I was amazed back then by how much content was in the game. Night, weather, dirt. Plus small details that might seem insignificant like fireworks, steering wheel rotating beyond 90, also made me really glad I bought a ps3 just for that game. Sure there were a lot of rough patches in the game, but after going through Forza 2 3 and 4 in which each iteration did not add much, I just enjoyed the shear amount of content in the game.
Now I'm seeing the same thing in this franchise. This game doesn't look like the next gen game it should be. Graphically, it looks slightly better than GT6, and I'm not a fan of the cotton ball shadows. Bring back the lighting from GT5! And what is this itteration adding to the franchise? A livery editor? Thats not enough for me to buy a PS4.
Now I'm seeing the same thing in this franchise. This game doesn't look like the next gen game it should be. Graphically, it looks slightly better than GT6, and I'm not a fan of the cotton ball shadows. Bring back the lighting from GT5! And what is this itteration adding to the franchise? A livery editor? Thats not enough for me to buy a PS4.
- 8,447
- Rockay City
What I noticed on the PC version of FM6 (Apex) is that they have a dynamic system, so it scales up/down graphical quality depending on whether it can keep up the framerate.
- 1,386
- Virginia
- FordGT40Guy
- FordGTGuy
If this were even true then it would be despicable, that would mean they aren't giving normal PS4 owners an acceptable product in order to give PS4.5 buyers the "real" game.
Honestly, there is no excuse when you have Forza 6 on a weaker system for a game to run like this as a competitor.
- 1,549
- New Zealand
- MHFanatik
- 1,386
- Virginia
- FordGT40Guy
- FordGTGuy
Honestly, people do it to try to make themselves feel better about what they have; that's why a chunk of the sim community is pretty vile.
Just look at any Gran Turismo or Forza video on the ISR Channel on Youtube in the comments, they are always full of people talking about how awful it is and how much better the game they play is better.
- 2,428
- England
- Lewis_Hamilton_
What an awful comparison to make that has no relation to gaming whatsoever.
May be because they are used to high quality sims that offer the most realism and features that are missing in the console games. Remember that all of these PC sims have a fraction of budget and staff compared to the console dev teams, yet pump out much higher quality material.
What's worse than people being elitist about PC sims are the console only players who claim GT/Forza are the best sims or all they need and absolutely refuse to try anything else.
- 6,946
- United Kingdom
- 1,549
- New Zealand
- MHFanatik
So why bother wasting time looking up videos of console racers and leaving mean comments and what not? Seems like a major waste of time to me which could be spent on more productive things, maybe even playing the very game you root for. Just strange, childish behavior. PC sims have their niche, console sims have theirs.
The funniest thing in the whole matter is that we've heard time and time again from developers themselves that they're always respectful of their competitors and all of them do it because they're passionate for cars and racing and are all essentially aiming to fire up the same passion in other people through their games. Developers are very nice, polite and friendly compared to forum fanboys ironically.
- 167
- Italy
- Vaira--80
Hi, i saw very good steps in right direction, so the tyres sound, as i was write, is one of the most hated by me, i want add that one that i saw in a couple of replays, the smoke from the tyres! its too much ,you almost cant see anything,ok is the way of drifting,but in real case the spinning of the tyre causes minus or major quantity of smoke( road track,dirt track, snow track,wet track) ,in gt6 and now in gt sport , is all a big cloud ,i hope they will bring a better version at the final product.( in gt sport i don't saw nothing more than a dry tracks condition so..)
- 1,281
- Cape Town
- Twoclicks_ZA
To be quite honest, from the pre-alpha screenshots and gameplay, I wasn't too impressed with Driveclub visually. Acquiring the game seven months after launch, I was spared first -hand experience of the hot mess that it was when it was rushed out, and it was easily the best-looking game out back then, and it is still my most played game as of today.
The point is that, even though we might have to wait for these problems to be patched post-release, I have absolute faith that PD are aware of what's going on, although it might be a case of too little, too late, as the critical dissonance won't catch on with a large portion of the fanbase, leading PD down a similar road to Evolution Studios, which I'm actually afraid of.
One thing that I know that PD won't give any quarter about is the sound. One has to seriously wonder what Mike Caviezel has been doing at PD. The lead of sound development, the main reason why FM's cars sounded so glorious, can't even manage to improve those choked engines.
The point is that, even though we might have to wait for these problems to be patched post-release, I have absolute faith that PD are aware of what's going on, although it might be a case of too little, too late, as the critical dissonance won't catch on with a large portion of the fanbase, leading PD down a similar road to Evolution Studios, which I'm actually afraid of.
One thing that I know that PD won't give any quarter about is the sound. One has to seriously wonder what Mike Caviezel has been doing at PD. The lead of sound development, the main reason why FM's cars sounded so glorious, can't even manage to improve those choked engines.
- 1,240
- Italy
That moment when you're half joke pessimistic predictions are actually becoming reality. 
I said few months back that GTS will sound just slightly better, PD will scrap AES unable to make it work and start from scratch.
I believe it's actually happening..
And the gear changes are killing me. So fake, absolutely instant with zero sound effects.
I said few months back that GTS will sound just slightly better, PD will scrap AES unable to make it work and start from scratch.
I believe it's actually happening..
And the gear changes are killing me. So fake, absolutely instant with zero sound effects.
- 2,428
- England
- Lewis_Hamilton_
Because people can have multiple interests? You don't have to exclusively limit yourself to one game or platform, it's likely many of those people used to and/or still play on consoles as well. I check out games and genres that I don't play very frequently, to see if it's worth trying out for myself and getting in to.
When a new product is going to release and it's being hyped up, promising new things that they've never done before, do you not like to see what the fuss is all about? Then when that hyped new product fails to deliver again, are people not free to criticize it for not keeping up with the competition or their own promises that they've been making for years?
- 37
- Monza
- oni_teacher
Honestly I think that starting with 130 Premium Cars is not that bad.
The key to success for modern racing simulation is the physics model. If your competitor start to be Assetto Corsa you can't spend 24 months on building the interiors of 1000 cars that behave quite all the same.
Japanese Pack released by AC was quite a "warning" to PD
The key to success for modern racing simulation is the physics model. If your competitor start to be Assetto Corsa you can't spend 24 months on building the interiors of 1000 cars that behave quite all the same.
Japanese Pack released by AC was quite a "warning" to PD
Last edited:
- 1,386
- Virginia
- FordGT40Guy
- FordGTGuy
It's an analogy, it doesn't have to directly relate to gaming in order to get the point across.
I'm going to have to strongly disagree.
For one, you're trying to hold a singular standard to games that are working towards different goals. Forza is never going to be as realistic of a racing game as a racing sim because Forza is in the words of Turn 10 a "track day sim.". This isn't about them being lazy and not wanting to add the features in order to make it a full racing sim, it's about the style of game it is trying to achieve.
Also, while PC racing sims have quite the track list they sorely lack when it comes to car count compared to Forza and Gran Turismo. Not to mention the ability to upgrade every single one of the cars in both games. I would also argue that the quality of the tracks in a game like Forza actually surpass a title such as Project Cars.
While they do exist, that doesn't mean they are trolling. I think you could make a strong case for GT and Forza being the best sims available depending on what you want to do. If you want a huge variety of available cars in order to upgrade and compete with your friends.... well nothing is really better.
I don't personally feel that console sim players are anywhere as elitest about their favorite sims as PC players are; again, just look at any Forza or GT video on a channel devoted to PC sims and look at the constant hate.
There is nothing wrong with checking out other titles but dropping a bunch of vile crap on a title that most people haven't even played before doing so does nothing to help either improve the game or community at large. Forza and GT are not for everyone but it's insane to hold a game like Forza that has 600 cars varying between a Pontiac Aztec and Lotus F1 car to achieve the same realism as a title with 50 cars that only focus on race cars with no upgrading at all.
I can understand the disappointment surrounding GTS and I honestly hope that Polyphony is seeing the reaction from the community about how people are upset. However we're talking about sim community at large and it's honestly hard to try and say a game like Forza 6 didn't deliver, for god's sake it managed to be the first sim racer with realistic hydroplaning puddles.
Word of mouth and reputation are much bigger factors in being a critical success.
It's funny seeing people in this thread continue to talk about how graphics don't matter like it's an echo chamber. Well graphics do matter, if they didn't then what's even the point of GTS at all? Why not just play GT6? It has dynamic weather, the same physics engine, more cars and more tracks.
- 360
- France
Has nothing to do with building 1000 cars from scratch. Over 400 premiums are already top perfect excellent ready for the transition. I don't care if the technology to build them is older than for the newer cars, the method may be old, the outcome is still next-gen, they look stunning. Only small tweaks to the physics of each and rebuild sound; that's what they should work.
- 37
- Monza
- oni_teacher
We all hope so!
- 9,295
- Duisburg
Forza and GT both don't even try to be perfect hardcore simulators. Seems to me their respective developers are perfectly happy with them being sim-cade titles that are, above all else, accessible to everyone.
That said, I don't see how a great physics engine and a large number of car models are mutually exclusive. I'd assume that the folks programming the physics engine aren't the same guys that are modelling the cars. What's more, PD surely has the funds to acquire the necessary manpower or outsource the modelling process should they want to do so. And even then, as others have said, there's a huge collection of perfectly fine car models that are being left out because... Well, why exactly? That's probably the most frustrating thing for me: The decision making at PD. I absolutely can not wrap my head around it. The same people that justified the inclusion of standard cars are now excluding premiums. Mind = boggled.
I, personally, don't care much about either. You bet that Sony's shareholders care about the revenue, not about critical acclaim, though.
- 360
- France
- 1,386
- Virginia
- FordGT40Guy
- FordGTGuy
There is a big difference between a great physics engine and being truly realistic(Not that they are mutually exclusive) to every car. In my opinion, Forza has a great physics engine but it's not true to life to every car and a big part of that is because of the variety of cars that have to run on that physics engine.
Games that purely focus on racing cars have a distinct advantage in being able to focus on making a certain type of car feel realistic.
When you have F1 cars, trucks, vans, muscle cars, fwd hatchbacks, 30s GP cars, 40s sedans and trucks, modern sedans and more. All these types of cars use different drivetrains, suspensions, tires and are even built different structurally. For instance, Forza 6's physics engine actually takes into account how the frames and bodies(wood and metal) on 1930 GP cars perform under stress.
Last edited:
Similar threads
